...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Flaming “Asian” in terrorist attack: That miniscule fringe of jihadists is on the move again, trying to pull off the next big kaboom on British soil. So far they’ve had three major failures in the past 24 hours, the latest being a car that was driven into a terminal at the Glasgow airport. The car and its driver—whom the Beeb, ever-sensitive to certain, um, cultural sensitivities, describes as being a generic “Asian” (which would seem to cover a whole lot of territory, but which, as everyone knows, is p.c. lingo for “Muslim")—both caught fire, but, fortunately, the explosives in the vehicle failed to detonate.

One can only speculate on the how many more angry “Asians” are getting set to blow.

 

Speaking of things in flames, I’ve never had a “Flaming Mo”, a supposedly delectable libation concocted by Mo the barkeep on The Simpson’s, but I’ve been lucky enough to get my hands on the recipe for a “Flaming Asian.” Here it is:

 

1 ½ ounces sake

 

3 ounces lichee juice

 

¼ tsp. grated ginger

 

Squeeze of lemon

 

6 ounces liquid Semtex.

 

Directions: Gently—and I mean really gently—combine ingredients in a cocktail shaker. Add ice. Stir. Strain.

 

I’d go easy on the Semtex, though. I hear it’s a real gut-buster.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:51 | link | comments

Sheema shills for the shmatta: Sheema Khan, founder of CAIR-CAN, the Canadian branch of the Hamas-supporting Muslim American lobby group, has another of her delightful “let down your guard, little infidels, Islam is swell” comment pieces in the Globe and Mail (available in its entirety to subscribers). Today Sheema wants us to know that a hijab is just a head scarf, a small piece of cloth, and that even though the French appear to be all hot and bothered about it and won’t allow it in their public schools--and it now looks like the province of Quebec may follow suit—wearing the hijab is simply a matter of accepting and allowing for cultural differences in a multicultural society. In her defence of the hijab, she goes into great detail about “France’s peculiar brand of liberty” (as the headline describes the hijab ban), throwing in everything from “the French concept of laïcité” to “the legacy of French colonialism” to Jean-Jacques Rousseau: She would likely have also tossed in the kitchen sink, only she probably didn’t know how to say it in French.

Sheema is extremely concerned because Quebec, being of French heritage, seems prey to the same kind of misconceptions about the hijab that are prevelant in France:

…In France, Muslim women faced two waves of opposition against their choice of wearing the hijab: charges of extremism and the violation of the laïcité, culminating in the 2004 law that banned all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools. Now a third wave is under way as hijab opponents accuse Muslim women of violating the French definition of equality. Wanting a complete hijab ban, they warn of a return to a time when the church ruled women’s lives. They unfairly graft their particular Catholic experience onto all Muslims.

 

Given a similar discourse in Quebec, expect the third wave to hit la belle province, too.

 

I have to give Sheema credit. She has managed to turn the wearing of a hijab, the outward expression of a Muslim woman’s allegiance to a totalitarian Islam, into something that has to do with the Catholic Church. A brilliant bait and switch!

 

My letter to the Globe:

 

There is no doubt that France has made a lot of mistakes in its dealings with its Muslim immigrant communities, but the decision to ban female students from wearing head scarves in public schools is not one of the them. The French understand that the head scarf is not called for in classic Islamic doctrine. It is of much more recent currency, and only became popular in the wake of the Islamic revolution in Iran. As such, it is a political symbol more than anything else.

 

That France has decided to bar this symbol of political Islam—which symbolizes, as well, a woman’s reduced status under Islamic law—from state schools, is not “peculiar.” In fact, it betokens a refreshing commitment to the values of Western civilization that we here in Canada would be wise to emulate.

 

Actually, I know that since Canadians worship at the Church of Multiculturalism, there’s no way we’d ever go for a ban on the hijab. I’d settle for our getting a clue about what the hijab really means and the reason why so many more Muslim women are now wearing one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:48 | link | comments

Nelson’s column still stands—for now: The last time London endured heavy fire from ambitious fascists, it came from Nazi airplanes during the Blitz. This time around, the ambitious fascists are right there on the ground—and so is the fire. From Bloomberg.com:

June 29 (Bloomberg) -- British police found explosive material in a second car in London near Trafalgar Square, Peter Clarke, the U.K.'s chief anti-terrorism officer, said in a televised briefing.

That car was ``clearly linked'' to a car found earlier today outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub near Piccadilly Circus that was dismantled by police bomb experts, Clarke told reporters at Scotland Yard. The second car had been towed because it was illegally parked and was later found to contain the explosives, Clarke said.

The discovery of the second car is ``obviously troubling and reinforces the need for the public to be alert,'' Clarke said. ``We are doing everything possible to protect the public.''

NBC News, citing unidentified U.S. officials, reported that U.K. police are seeking three men in connection with the case who may be from Birmingham...

Birmingham, huh? Does this mean there’s going to be more of that nasty “Islamophobia” as police round up the usual suspects there?

 

Under the circumstances, it seemed appropriate to revise a schmaltzy ballad that helped see the Brits through the last Blitz:

 

That fateful day

That Brown took pow’r

There was jihad and rage in the air.

There were seethers plotting homegrown plots

And a bomb didn’t blow in Trafalgar Square.

 

I may be wrong,

I may be right,

But I’m perfectly willing to swear

That al Qaeda’s implicated here.

Though a bomb didn’t blow in Trafalgar Square.

 

The two bombs found today in London town

Were stuffed with nails, to make folks frown.

Oh, why they would try it’s not so hard to ‘splain,

And you can bet they’ll try again.

 

The streets of town

Were full of cops.

There was not a policeman to spare

As they searched the joint for jihadis.

And a bomb didn’t blow in Trafalgar Square.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:32 | link | comments

Oh, no, they’ve killed Farfour: Tragic news--Farfour Mouse, the “adorable” Hamas rodent, is no more. He has kicked the bucket. He has bought the farm. He has shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the bleeding vermin choir invisible. He is an ex-Mouse.

Farfour was “martyred” in the final episode of the jihadist kiddie show on which he starred, the victim of an Israeli “terrorist” who was trying to steal Palestinian land.

 

A more honest depiction, of course, would have had Farfour being flung off a rooftop by a member of Fatah, and, once his sorry carcass hit the ground, being mutilated by other frenzied Fatah-niks.

 

But that might be a bit too true-to-life for those sensitive Hamas moppets.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:32 | link | comments

“Funny” business: “Satire,” as American comic playwright George S. Kaufman once said, “is what closes on Saturday night.” I haven’t watched Ceeb satiric news show This Hour Has Twenty-Two Minutes in a dog’s age (literally—I think my previous dog, who’s been dead for four years, was alive the last time I saw it) but when, intrigued by the caption "Harper Youth," I clicked on this link on the Ceeb site, I couldn’t help but recall Kaufman’s quip—and note that it might have been best had this Ceeb satire closed on a Saturday (or another) night about six or seven years ago.

It’s not that I care if the Ceeb mocks the Prime Minister du jour; heck, if a satire show didn’t do that, it wouldn’t be doing its job. It’s just that, more than a year into Harper’s governance, the Ceeb is still harping on Harper’s supposed “scariness” (booga booga). Before Harper was elected, his scariness rested on what fear-mongering Lefties liked to call his “hidden agenda.” What was the agenda? Hard to say; it was hidden. The implication, though, was that it incorporated all sorts of “scary” right wing Conservative measures, like, say, stripping women of their rights and forcing them to retreat, barefoot and preggers, into the kitchen. (Oh, wait. I think I’m mixing it up with the Islamist agenda—about which the Ceeb evinces far less fear ‘cause that would be “Islamophobic.”) Anyway, now that Harper’s been around a while, and none of the scary stuff has materialized, this scariness now rests mostly on his reaffirmation of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

 

Oooo, scary!

 

The 22 Minutes snippet revolves around Conservative youth at a Conservative conference. And since they’re big “C” and little “c” conservative youth,  they’re dweeby, sexless, and decked out in matching uncool outfits—unlike that mega-cool Ceeb hipster-host  George Stomboulopoulous, who has visible piercings, and who only wears tight black shirts and jeans. And since they’re “conservative” youth, they’re actually little more than well-scrubbed fascists—Harper Youth; Hitler Youth: same diff, right? And since they’re “conservative” youth, they’re so lame and out of synch with the zeitgeist (to coin a phrase) that they’re like a throwback to one of those ungroovy four-part harmony groups from the late 50s/early 60s—the kind SCTV used to lampoon as the Five Neat Guys.

 

The four neat Harper Jungen in the clip croon several “amusing” songs, including one to the tune of  “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” that culminates in the witty observation: “Scarily, scarily, scarily, scarily/Life’s a Tory dream.”

 

Nuh uh. Scarily, scarily, scarily, scarily, life’s a taxpayer-funded “satire” that’s emblematic of the Ceeb’s general cluelessness, witlessness and idiocy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:53 | link | comments

The two Abdullahs: There’s the Saudi Abdullah—he’s the absolute ruler of a Magic Kingdom which spends billions of shekels brainwashing Muslims in Wahabbism, a particularly noxious and backward-looking version of the one true faith. Then there’s the Jordanian Abdullah—he’s young, has a babe-alicious, un-burqa’d wife, and is supposedly a “moderate” and a good friend of the West. But, as is clear from this Arab News report, when you get right down to it, there’s far more that unites the two Abdullahs than divides them:

AMMAN…— Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, who arrived here yesterday on the last leg of his five-nation tour, urged Palestinian groups to stand united to protect their national interests. He warned that their continuing infighting would destroy all hope of setting up an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

 

The Saudi leader and his delegation received an unprecedented welcome from Jordan’s King Abdallah and other senior officials. Thousands of Jordanians, including tribal leaders in traditional dress, stood along roads to cheer the king and his entourage waving pictures of him and Saudi flags.

 

Amman had a festive look with colorful banners welcoming the Saudi ruler. King Abdullah enjoys wide popularity in Jordan because of his stand on Arab and Islamic issues.

Both kings later held a meeting and discussed major regional and international issues. Their talks covered the outcome of the four-party summit meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh and the efforts to achieve a just Middle East peace settlement, the situation in Iraq and Lebanon as well as ways to strengthen bilateral ties.

 

In an interview with Jordan’s Al-Rai Arabic daily, the Saudi king spoke about his brotherly relations with Jordan’s king. “Our relationship is based on mutual love and confidence. We always keep in touch and exchange views in order to serve the interests of both countries and the Ummah.” He also underscored the deep-rooted relations between the two neighbors...

 

Memo to gullible Westerners: Remember, as far as the Abdullahs are concerned, it’s all about the Ummah.

 

The Saudi Abdullah has a message for the Palestinians, whose “unity” he tried—and, ultimately, dismally failed—to broker:

 

King Abdullah blamed Israel and world powers for making the situation worse in Palestine. “The situation after the Makkah Accord was promising and positive but three months after the agreement was signed, the situation deteriorated. Israel’s stubbornness and the refusal by some world powers to help the Palestinians cement understanding between them led to this deterioration,” he explained.

 

The Saudi king called upon the Palestinian leaders to shoulder their responsibility toward their people. “The present situation (fighting between Fatah and Hamas) should not be allowed to continue as it will serve the usurpers of Palestinian territory and harm the just Palestinian cause. It will also destroy the hope of setting up an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

 

There’s that Ummah fixation again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:39 | link | comments

Film follies: In my considered opinion, few phrases are as vacuous—or as cringe-inducing—as “human rights.” Case in point: the 18^th annual Human Rights Watch film festival, run in conjuction with the Film Society of Lincoln Center. While some of the films on display here deal with “human rights” in the earlier sense of, say, late Cold War-era Russian dissidents, the vast majority fall under the rubric of “things that aren’t really about human rights, unless you happen to be a clueless, Israel-bashing Lefty.” By Bari Weiss in OpinionJournal:

…From an artistic perspective, the festival has been highly impressive. Riveting archival footage of the searing destruction wrought by the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ("White Light/Black Rain") and shocking confessionals from failed Palestinian bombers in Israeli prisons ("Hot House") make it clear why many of these films have won distinctions at prominent festivals like Toronto and Sundance.

 

But the point of this specific festival is not to satisfy the film buffs who frequent the Walter Reade Theater. It is to highlight "the world's most pressing human rights issues," and it is on this count that the festival falls short.

 

In choosing the two weeks' worth of films for the festival, director Bruni Burres views between 500 and 600 candidates. When I asked Ms. Burres how she and her committee decide what human-rights issues are most crucial to highlight, she told me, "We never rate any films or any issues as more important than another film or issue." Later in our conversation, she reiterated: "We never declare one human-rights issue more important than another."

 

Such a theoretical standard is troubling, and helps explain how certain documentaries made it into the festival. Take Marco Williams's film "Banished," for example. Narrated by Mr. Williams, "Banished" tells the story of three American communities--Forsyth County, Ga.; Pierce City, Mo.; and Harrison, Ark.--as they struggle with the knowledge that racial cleansings occurred there in the period right after the Civil War. Several descendants of the blacks who were banished form the moral center of the film, as they articulate their desire for retribution.

Though "Banished" illuminates an important political issue--what is white America's responsibility to African-Americans in terms of reparations?--it's hard to see how its subject matter constitutes an urgent human-rights concern.

 

The same goes for two features that focus on environmental issues. "Everything's Cool," a nominee for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, is about global warming, while "The Unforeseen" investigates the impact of real-estate development on the environment in Austin, Texas. While there is no doubt that abuse of the environment is a crucial issue, it's a stretch to claim that it represents a top human-rights priority.

Judging by the audience's reaction to the films, it seemed that many in attendance were also failing to make the sorts of difficult distinctions necessary in human-rights advocacy--namely, which wrongs are more wrong than others. During the Q-and-A period following "Banished," an audience member praised the film as a universal--rather than American--story, arguing that what's going on in Israel and Palestine is exactly the same as African-Americans pushing for the return of their land. The majority of those in the room applauded his analysis.

 

Following Sunday night's screening of "Cocalero," a sympathetic portrayal of Bolivia's new Socialist president, Evo Morales, the audience broke out into laughter as Mr. Morales and his supporters chanted "death to Yankees," but didn't flinch as Mr. Morales cozied up to Fidel Castro and stood proudly in front of flags emblazoned with the image of Che Guevara…

 

 Vlad Lenin’s “useful idiots”—in the flesh.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:22 | link | comments

Hilarious!: Islam Online has managed to dredge up a picture suggesting where "peace" envoy Tony Blair's true allegiance lies:

What, couldn't they find one of him eating some potato latkes and gefilte fish?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:38 | link | comments

Pelosi hangs far-left: There appear to be some among the tin-foil hat brigade who are concerned about what they perceive to be a right-ward drift by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has been quick to reassure them that there has been no drift, and she remains firmly in their camp.

Phew. What a relief!

 

From TheHill.com:

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is working hard to make sure that the fiery liberal wing of the Democratic Party remembers that she is one of them. She is also going out of her way to reassure opponents of the war that she is on their side.

Her efforts are taking place in speeches and interviews off Capitol Hill and away from the constraints and compromises inherent in running the House. Liberal lawmakers and activists accuse Pelosi of being too cautious.

Now, with Congress’s approval rating plummeting following its passage of an Iraq war-spending bill without a troop-withdrawal timeline, the Speaker is signaling that Democrats will be more forceful in challenging the president.

In recent speeches and interviews, Pelosi has acknowledged the left’s frustration with the war and asked it to work with congressional Democrats to help alter the political climate.

“Unless we make our own environment, we’ll be wedded to incrementalism,” Pelosi told a group of college students on Tuesday at a conference hosted by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank…

 

And who wants to be wedded to incrementalism when you can be married to Islamism?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:44 | link | comments

Deflating Blair: Just as Tony Blair is chomping at the bit, eager to get started on his new job as Middle East Peace in Our Time Envoy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel gives him a not-so-gentle tug on the reigns. Just so he knows who’s boss. From Forbes:

BERLIN (Thomson Financial) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today that Tony Blair's mandate as the new Middle East envoy would be limited and that he would report to the international 'Quartet' and not the other way round.

 

Merkel, whose country is outgoing president of the European Union, which is part of the Quartet working to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict along with the United States, the United Nations and Russia, said the former British prime minister was uniquely suited to the job.

When asked about complaints by some Quartet members that Blair was pitched as envoy by Washington without their involvement, Merkel said the EU had given Blair its explicit support but had insisted on retaining the power with the other members to set its agenda.

 

'The whole Quartet -- including the European Union -- agreed to Tony Blair becoming the Quartet envoy,' she told reporters after talks in Berlin with new French Prime Minister Francois Fillon.

 

'Tony Blair is a man with great political experience and I believe that in working with the Quartet he can make a meaningful and important contribution if he brings that experience to bear in trying to solve the Middle East conflict.

 

'But the political burden here will remain on the shoulders of the Quartet.”…

 

So don’t get all pumped up about your own grandiosity, Tony, because Angela, for one, is quite willing to stick a pin in it.

 

Update: An interview with historian Bat Ye-or (link via Atlas Shrugs) outlines the real obstacles to "peace"--the EU's collusion with the Arabs, and the Muslim desire to dhimmify the non-Muslim world:

 

André Darmon - Is not the juridical conflict between shari'a law and European laws a slow-ticking bomb?

Bat Ye'or - It is true that we use the same words: justice, peace... But in shari'a, the law of Muslims, peace means submission, above all. Therefore Arab countries will not be able to envisage peace until Israel is subjugated. The concept of women's rights, of simply Human Rights, is different. There is a real antagonism between the two cultures for which I see no solution. Everything in the non-Muslim world is founded on separation of powers and democracy while in shari'a it is first and foremost the primacy of religious law. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a drop in the bucket in the aims of the of the organization of the Islamic Conference that seeks universal Islamization and the establishment of a planetary caliphate. The subversion of the universities, of the media, of the churches, the politics of compromise, of concessions will eventually result in the United States following the lead of Europe in the submission to Islam.

 

Update: "Eventually"? How about "right now"?

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:32 | link | comments

Spy story: I hate to use an old cliché, but truth really is stranger than fiction. As proof I would offer the following story, which reads like something out of John Le Carré (who, at one time, in another life, I used to read and enjoy). From The Australian:

AN Egyptian billionaire businessman identified as the Mossad agent who tipped Israel off on the eve of the 1973 Yom Kippur War about the coming attack was found dead yesterday outside his home in London in suspicious circumstances.

Police said Ashraf Marwan, the son-in-law of the late Egyptian president Gamel Abdel Nasser, had fallen from the fourth-floor balcony of his home overlooking St James's Park.

Police were treating his death as suspicious. Friends of Dr Marwan said he had feared assassination after being named four years ago as an Israeli agent during the Yom Kippur war.

Dr Marwan's link to the Mossad was publicly revealed four years ago by Israeli researchers and confirmed this month in a Tel Aviv judicial proceeding in which the head of Israeli military intelligence in 1973, now retired Major General Eli Zeira, was found to have leaked Dr Marwan's identity to journalists and others.

His death will send shockwaves across the Middle East and among some of Britain's wealthiest people. His associates included arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, chairman of Leeds football club Ken Bates, and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

If found to be murder, his death will carry echoes of last year's assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB agent.

Dr Marwan's access to wealth and power stemmed from his marriage to the favourite daughter of Nasser, who made him a roving ambassador.

Dr Marwan began dabbling on his own in arms deals. In 1969, he entered the Israeli embassy in London and offered his services as an agent.

Despite deep initial scepticism about his motives and fears that he was a double agent, the Mossad soon found him to be supplying priceless political and military information from the heart of the Egyptian establishment, some of which could be confirmed from other sources.

Although he demanded and received large payments, Israeli officials believed his motivation lay more in the psychological realm than greed.

Two days before the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, Dr Marwan, in Cairo, telephoned his Mossad handler in London and let drop a code word for imminent war. He asked to meet with the then Mossad head, Zvi Zamir.

Mr Zamir flew to London and met Dr Marwan late the next night, Yom Kippur eve.

Dr Marwan revealed that the Egyptian and Syrian armies would attack the next day.

The warning, passed on by Mr Zamir, reached Israel in the pre-dawn hours.

This would prove sufficient for the first reservist tank units to reach the Golan Heights just as Syrian divisions were breaking through the thin defences.

In desperate battles, the Israelis stopped the Syrian army and then pushed it back.

Dr Marwan subsequently became a high-flying businessman based in London and engaged in often mysterious international dealings.

Despite the allegations in recent years about his Mossad connection, he continued to visit Egypt, where he was a prominent figure in society and business…

But not prominent enough, it seems, to forever forestall an encounter with a vengeful assassin.

 

Something for Sir Salman Rushdie, another "traitor" with a price on his head, to keep in mind.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:14 | link | comments

Harpooning Blair: You may not believe it, but Harpoon Siddiqui and I actually agree about something. We both think that tapping Tony Blair to be the new Middle East envoy is a bad idea. But that’s where our apparently freakish meeting of minds ends. I disagree with Blair’s appointment because I think he's the latest in a long line of hubristic, clueless Westerners—Bill Clinton and, as it now turns out, George W. Bush being two others—who believe that the knots can be untied through concerted use of diplomacy, persuasion and, if necessary, some strong-armed coercion. Harpoon scorns the appointment because, although Blair is someone who “understands the centrality of the Israel-Palestinian dispute to the upheaval in the Middle East,” he is hauling around “too much baggage.” The cumbersome steamer trunk in question: his alliance with Bush and his war in Iraq, and their shared "responsibility for the death of between 66,000 and 600,000 Iraqis (depending on the source).”

Wow, that’s quite a wide divergence there, Harpoon. Which sources are you depending on: the al Qaedist ones or the Khomeinist ones? In any case, aren't those the same sources responsible for most of the bloodshed, what with their virgin-seeking martyrdom operations and their demolishing of ancient mosques?

 

Harpoon is also critical of the appointment because of Blair’s “track-record of backing George W. Bush’s solid support of Israel.” Funny, I wasn’t aware of that track record. From my observation, Blair, in fact, has a blind spot when it comes to Israel—hence his insistence on its centrality—and is a big fan of “moderate” Arabs, like Jordan’s King Abdullah and his smokin’ wife, with whom he, Cherie and the kids like to spend their vacations.

 

But wait. According to Harpoon, there is even more reason “to be sceptical about the Blair mission":

He is to mobilize donors, promote economic development and help build Palestinian institutions.

But given the Quartet's decision to isolate Hamas and help Fatah, he can only help half those institutions. The initial Russian reservation about him was based precisely on this "divide and conquer policy," as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it. "A divided Palestine is a problem for Israel and the region."

Many supporters of Israel, including myself, share this judgment.

Come again? I’ve been reading Harpoon’s perorations twice-weekly for a long time, and never once have I seen any evidence that he counts himself among Israel’s supporters. On the contrary. Time and again he has expressed support for those who are actively working for Israel’s demise—and who happen to be the same people actively (or passively) seeking the demise of our entire civilization.

 

As such, I’d hold off on hitting him up for a donation to the JNF just yet:

Blair's far greater problem is that he mischaracterizes the Arab-Israeli dispute, along with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and other conflicts afflicting the Muslim world, as mere manifestations of an ideological battle between Islamic "reactionaries" and "moderates."

As real as that battle is, proffering it as the only, or even the main, explanation for the crisis of our age is to divorce it from the reality of wars, brutal or botched occupations, mass killings and endless humanitarian disasters, and to wash our hands of the West's major culpability in the mess.

In adopting this Bushian logic, Blair has been disingenuous or dishonest. The former is understandable for a politician with a lot of Arab and Muslim blood on his hands, but the latter is inexcusable for one who is promising them peace.

Blair has been disingenuous? Now that's the Harpoon I know and loathe: bumptious, belligerent, determined to pretend that there’s no jihad, no jihadism, and blind to the ocean of infidel blood that has been spilled down through the ages—and that continues to be spilled today.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:51 | link | comments

Unfinished story: The big Middle East story today—Tony Blair’s appointment as “peace” envoy—is so big that you may not have noticed a much bigger story: how fighting continues to rage at  a “refugee” camp in Lebanon. This despite the insistence of Lebanon’s government last week that the army now had the pesky terrorist well in hand.

Another reason you may not have noticed this big story is that, ever since that premature announcement of victory, the story has fallen off the MSM’s radar. From the Daily Star:

BEIRUT: The Lebanese Army resumed bombardment of Nahr al-Bared refugee camp Wednesday evening with shelling targeting Safouri, Safri and the Souk al-Bared neighborhoods in the older part of the camp, as well as the camp's seaward side. The army, which has dug in with sand-bag barricades around the older part of the camp, continued to respond with artillery fire to sniper fire from Fatah al-Islam militants and attempted infiltration by the militants, but on the whole Wednesday saw fewer and less intense clashes than previous days, according to a military source.

"When we get intelligence that militants are using a certain building as a snipers' nest, we shell it; when we get information that a building is booby-trapped, we send the tanks in to blow it up," the army source told The Daily Star.

An army statement Wednesday urged Palestinians inside the camp to take a "courageous and responsible stance" and confront the terrorists to convince them to end "their futile and purposeless fight." The statement said the remnants of Fatah al-Islam were confiscating humanitarian aid from camp residents and launching attacks from inside residents' homes.

The army postponed the burial of 16 dead Fatah al-Islam militants Wednesday after requests from several foreign embassies for time to verify the nationalities of the deceased fighters.

Fatah's commander in Lebanon, Sultan Abu al-Aynayn, said Wednesday that barely 70 fighters remained of the "Abssi gang" inside the camp.

Reports on the number of dead militants have ranged from 60 to 300, while 84 soldiers have been killed and over 150 wounded in the conflict...

Massacre! Outrage! Pass a resolution! Just a few of the things you would now be hearing if Israeli and not Lebanese soldiers were involved in this anti-terrorist action (which, if Israelis were taking part, would be said to involve “militants,” “radicals,” or “extremists”).

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:51 | link | comments

Tony, retitled: Claudia Rosett, a women blessed with clarity of vision and a saucy tongue, says Tony Blair’s new role as Mideast “peace” envoy has been mislabled:

...“Peace” — ? We are talking about the region that has been saturated for years in “peace talks” “land for peace” “seeds of peace” the “roadmap to peace” and especially the mother of all peace labels, the “peace process.” Hamas and Hezbollah snatch Israeli soldiers and attack Israeli civilians, Syria and Iran infiltrate weapons and terrorists into Iraq, the Saudis continue to funnel millions into their global network of kill-the-infidel madrassas. And in the midst of this we are invited to ponder along with the UN’s IAEA whether terrorist-spawning Iran — where terror trainees routinely chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” — simply wants nuclear energy for “peaceful uses.”

 

As Joshua Muravchik wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal: “A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak.”

 

Do we want peace? You bet. But it won’t come by way of sending another “peace” envoy whose title alone implies that we will do nothing but jaw-jaw in response to acts of war. Tony Blair carries one credential that may not earn him much in the West these days, but might still command respect amid the wars of the Middle East: He backed the war that toppled Saddam Hussein. That caused consternation enough among the despots of the Islamic world to make room in the immediate aftermath for Qaddafi to surrender his nuclear program, for the Lebanese to try to kick out their Syrian overlords, and for Iran to keep its mitts briefly off Iraq — before all concerned concluded that the U.S. and Britain had no more stomach for leading coalitions to overthrow Middle Eastern dictators and drag them out of spider-holes, and the “war process,” to which we responded with the “peace process,” kicked back into gear.

 

Labels may not be remotely enough to change the equation in the Middle East, but language does have its uses — and it is high time we scrapped the peace cliches that imply there is no cost to waging war against the free world. If Tony Blair is to be dispatched to tread the diplomatic routes of the region, let’s arm him (whether he likes it or not) with a title that might at least suggest there are limits to the threats and attacks that we will tolerate. Call him Tony Blair, “War Envoy” to the Middle East.

 

War Envoy—much better.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:20 | link | comments

Poe and the Palestinians: Now there are two things I would never have put together. Not until I read this piece by Barry Rubin in JWR, that is:

During the whole of a dull, dark, and soundless day in the autumn of the year... I had been passing alone, on horseback, through a singularly dreary tract of country; and at length found myself, as the shades of the evening drew on, within view of the melancholy House of Usher...With the first glimpse of the building, a sense of insufferable gloom pervaded my spirit...

Thus, Edgar Alan Poe began his remarkable 1839 short story, "The Fall of the House of Usher." Similar feelings beset me in contemplating the fall of the house of Yasser, the collapse of the PLO, of Fatah, and of Palestinian nationalism as a movement.

I won't go into that history of disaster in detail, but suffice it to say that what is happening now fits completely into that pattern.

Put your finger into the wine and flick one drop onto the plate for each item: 1948 war; 1967 war; failed West Bank guerrilla war; September 1970 in Jordan; terrorism; Lebanese civil war; intransigence; internal anarchy; the murder of the first moderates; corruption; incitement to terrorism and intransigence; throwing away the opportunity at Camp David; throwing away the opportunity of 1988 dialogue with the United States; the 1990s' peace process; and the second intifada. Forgive me for leaving out even more such examples.

Is there a pattern? Yes:

• By seeking everything, get nothing. Having as one's goal the destruction of Israel and total victory, rather than a compromise solution, the movement sank ever deeper into the mire.

• Glorifying violence and terrorism brought death and destruction on the movement and its followers.

• Embracing extremism, incitement, and demonization of Israel brought Hamas as its logical outcome.

 

AND NOW ask yourselves one simple question: Do you really believe that the Hamas coup is going to scare Fatah straight? Are these leaders and ideologues really going to learn their lesson? Well, this seems to be the main assumption of political leaders and the media in democratic countries. After all, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, facing the hangman greatly concentrates the mind.

 

But wait a minute! The PLO, Fatah, and their hierarchies have made a whole career about facing the hangman and tweaking his nose while giggling madly. If they had learned from, say, September 1970 in Jordan or other disasters it would have been sufficient for them to get on the right path.

Remember the Oslo process and why was it going to work? Because, we were told, the PLO and Fatah were so weak and so buffeted by catastrophe as to finally understand they must change their ways or be destroyed. Here we go again! Don't get me wrong. I do believe Fatah is preferable to Hamas — though the gap is far narrower than all too many people seem to think.

 

But even if your want to believe that Mahmoud Abbas is some peace-loving good guy, he is weak, incompetent, has no following and no intention of really confronting the culture of terrorism and extremism his own group created and maintains. He will also never give up the demand that all Palestinians should be able to live in pre-1967 Israel which is a deeply personal belief of his.

 

So Mr. Poe, how many more times do you think Abbas should be given a chance to acquit himself in a statesman-like fashion instead of like a Holocaust-denying thug? “Quoth the raven, ‘Nevermore.’”

 

The bird has spoken.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:52 | link | comments

Talking out of both sides of his mouth, as per usual: No one ever claimed that Fatah-affiliated terrorist outfit, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, was “disarming.” Revolting, loathsome and disgusting—yes; dismarming—definitely not.

Oh, except for that faux-moderate, Mahmoud Abbas, who has just made the claim. In making it, he thus gets to have his cake (Western confidence in his leadership abilities) and eat it, too (retain his movement’s affiliation to its terror militia, and ensure to continues to be outfitted in the appropriate military gear). From YNet News:

Members of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' declared military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, today denied claims by Abbas he asked the terror group to turn in their weapons, stating Abbas' officials instead have encouraged the Brigades to continue their "resistance" activities.

 

Abbas pledged during a summit with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday he would immediately dismantle all militias in the West Bank not connected to security forces of his Fatah party. Abbas deputies have been telling the international media the Al Aqsa Brigades agreed to turn in their weapons in exchange for guarantees that Israel not try to arrest or kill them.

"No one from Abbas' office ever asked us to disarm," Nasser Abu Aziz, the deputy commander of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank, told WND. "We will never disarm until all issues are settled, including a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem and the right of return for all Palestinian refugees."

'Message meant for Israelis'

Abu Yousuf, a leader of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Ramallah, told WND Abbas' claims the Brigades will disarm "are more of a message meant for the Israelis, the Americans and the international community. No one (from Abbas' office) addressed a single member of the Brigades and asked us to turn in our weapons."

Zacharias Zubeidi, leader of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank city of Jenin, told WND the decree from Abbas' office for armed groups to be dismantled "has nothing to do with the Brigades. It's meant for Hamas. Abbas recognizes the Brigades as a legitimate source of resistance."…

Abbas has mastered a technique perfected by his scruffier predecessor: say what you think the West wants to hear, but say what you really mean your followers, so the West won’t twig to your true intentions (or can at least pretend not to know what they are).

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:21 | link | comments

The pathetic spectacle of American diplomacy: While the Quartet wastes valuable time, attention and money trying to reanimate a dead camel, i.e., the concept of Palestinian statehood, Iran draws e’er nearer to the moment of “bombs away.” Former U.N. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, one of the rare voices of sanity these days, says there’s a very good reason for that. Under the pernicious influence of Foggy Bottom, George W. Bush’s brain and spine have been turned to mush. At the moment, says Bolton, Condi Rice runs the foreign policy show—and she’s about to run it and Israel into the ground. From the Jerusalem Post:

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective.

As a consequence, Bolton said he was "very worried" about the well-being of Israel. If he were in Israel's predicament, he said, "I'd be pushing the US very hard. I am pushing the US [administration] very hard, from the outside, in Washington."

Bolton, interviewed by telephone from Washington, was speaking a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency announced it would send a team to Teheran, at Iran's request, to work jointly on a plan ostensibly meant to clear up suspicions about the nuclear program. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani had met on Sunday with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, and a day earlier with top EU foreign policy envoy Javier Solana.

Bolton, however, was witheringly critical of the ongoing diplomatic contacts with Teheran, which he said were merely playing into the hands of the regime.

"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...

"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."

Bolton said flatly that "diplomacy and sanctions have failed... [So] we have to look at: 1, overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2, a last-resort use of force."

However, he added a caution as to the viability of the first of those remaining options: While "the regime is more susceptible to overthrow from within than people think," he said, such a process "may take more time than we have."

Overall, said Bolton, it was clear that Iran had surmounted "all the technical problems of uranium enrichment," and it "may well be that we have passed the point of Iran mastering the nuclear fuel cycle." If so, it was now merely a matter of time before Iran reached a bomb-making capability - "a matter of resources and available equipment," he said - and it was solely up to Iran to set the pace.

To his dismay, however, the Bush administration was still clinging to the empty notion that the sanctions route could work, "even though [the UN's sanction] Resolutions 1737 and 1747 were full of loopholes. The US is still seeking another sanctions resolution and Solana is still pursuing diplomacy," he said bitterly.

Bolton lamented that the Bush administration today was "not the same" as a presumably more robust incarnation three years ago, because of what he said was now the State Department's overwhelming dominance of foreign policy. "The State Department has adopted the European view [on how to deal with Iran] and other voices have been sidelined," he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy."…

But, hey, let’s pay Tony Blair a whole whack-load of moolah to get those Peace in Our Time talks back on the rails, because once there’s an independent Palestine, everything else will fall into place, right?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:58 | link | comments

Smile guy: You can add the ruler of the Magic Kingdom to the list of Islamists trying to spruce up their image in the West. From Arab News:

WARSAW, 27 June 2007 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah yesterday received the Order of the Smile during a ceremony at Belweder Palace. The children of the world selected him for the award in appreciation for his role in the separation of the Polish conjoined twins Olga and Daria Kolacz at a Riyadh hospital in 2005.

“We in Saudi Arabia were happy to host the Polish twins. When I visited them in hospital, I saw their beautiful smiles that strengthened my perception that our basic responsibility is to build a future of peace and security where our children can live happily without fears,” Abdullah said while addressing a banquet hosted in his honor by Polish President Lech Kaczynski.

“This is the goal for which I pray day and night and may God help us to realize it with other nations of the world,” the king said.

In his speech, Kaczynski supported the king’s views saying: “Peace is the most valuable thing in the world.” He said Saudi Arabia and Poland wanted peace to prevail all over the world including the Middle East.

Kaczynski thanked Abdullah for instructing a 50-member medical team at King Abdul Aziz Medical City in Riyadh to separate the Polish twins. The Saudi king paid the expenses for the complicated 15-hour surgery on the 17-month-old Kolacz twins in January 2005 when he was crown prince.

“The children chose King Abdullah because he showed through this act that the problems of children are close to his heart. He saved the life of Polish twin sisters, as well as other children around the world,” said Marek Michalak, founder of the Child Friendship Center, who presented the Order of the Smile award to the king.

Abdullah also received the twins and their mother, who thanked the king for giving her and the twins the best care during their stay in the Kingdom.

Abdullah is the first Saudi king to visit the predominantly Roman Catholic country. He arrived here on Monday and held talks with President Kaczynski and his twin brother Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski on major regional and international issues and ways of boosting bilateral ties.

The visit also witnessed the signing of five agreements to promote cooperation in the areas of security, education, health, science and technology and sports.

Kaczynski conferred on the king the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, and Abdullah reciprocated by awarding the president the King Abdul Aziz Medallion. King Abdullah also decorated the Polish prime minister with the King Abdul Aziz Sash of the First Order…

I think that’s what you call “log-rolling.”

Two other comments: It’s hilarious that there’s a President Kaczynski and a Prime Minister Kaczynski—and that they’re twins. Do they ever punk the country by switching places—and then switching back?

Also, the wacky Wahabbist seems to have gotten a lot of mileage out of a story that happened two years ago. You would think that “the children of the world” would have seen fit to award him their smile prize before now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments

Loads of loonies: Last night on Larry King Live, the two living Beatles and the widows of the two late Beatles came together to promote the Las Vegas Cirque de Soleil show Love. The show, which opened a year ago, is built around some famous Beatles songs. (I saw the show not long after it opened last summer. My verdict: loved the music, but I still find the whole Cirque de Soleil spectacle kind of creepy and grotesque—like a Fellini movie come to life. At least I had the sense not to watch it after consuming mind-altering mushrooms—not that I’ve ever consumed mind-altering mushrooms—which is what the characters played by Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd do in the film Knocked Up. Talk about nightmarish.)

Anyway, the sight of Sir Paul McCartney sitting there on a couch playing the mandolin inspired me to revise one of the songs in the show:

 

Ah, look at all the loony people.

Ah, look at all the loony people.

 

Ismail Haniyeh

Picks up his rage

From a book that is centuries old.

Such a big scold.

Sits there in Gaza,

Complaining that save for Iran it seems nobody cares.

Nobody dares.

 

All the loony people—where do they are come from?

All the loony people—where do they all belong?

 

Jimminy Carter

Shills for Hamas because he has a hate-on for Jews.

What can he lose?

Writes a bestseller—

Peace not Apartheid.

It’s such an enormous success.

Full of b.s.

 

All the loony people—where do they are come from?

All the loony people—where do they all belong?

 

Moo Moo Gadhaffy

Looks like a waxwork escaped from a Madame Tussaud’s.

See where he goes.

Watch as he's ranting,

Blaming a doc in a dock

At a kangaroo court.

Does is for sport.

 

All the loony people—where do they are come from?

All the loony people—where do they all belong?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:47 | link | comments

Same old brutality: A recent symposium on FrontPage Magazine informed us that Al Qaeda may be trying a new tack. Instead of all the blood, guts and beheadings, the jihadists have apparently decided to take a kinder, gentler approach to jihad. Oh, they’re every bit as ardent, but they’ve decided that the bloodshed may be turning some people off. A translated article on the MEMRI site, though, seems to indicate that, for at least some leading jihadists, the gentler approach holds little appeal. Sheik Hussein bin Mahmoud, a senior Al Qaeda operative, thinks the faithful need to get back to basics. In his words,

'May Allah Send Someone Who Will Kill Them Even More [Savagely]… Tear Their Hearts Out… Cut Their Heads Off, Tear Them Limb From Limb, and Shed Their Blood in Rivers'

 

So much for toning it down.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:58 | link | comments

Irrational rationing: We keep hearing how the Iranian populace is so thoroughly fed up with the inept theocrats who run the joint that any minute now the people may rise up and topple them. Or maybe not. The religious zanies are still firmly in charge, and the people seem to lack the wherewithal to get rid of them.

And yet, all that may be about to change. Iranians, who live in a country awash in oil, are being subjected to onerous gas rationing—and they’re pretty steamed about the whole thing. From Reuters:

 

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Angry Iranian motorists queued for gasoline on Wednesday hours after the world's fourth largest oil exporter imposed fuel rationing, sparking chaotic scenes and the torching of two pump stations in the capital.

Drivers raced to fill up their tanks late on Tuesday after the Oil Ministry announced the delayed scheme would finally go ahead at midnight after months of confusion and conflicting statements, forming lines that stretched hundreds of meters.

One fuel station in Pounak, a poorer area of the capital, was set alight while another in eastern Tehran was partially burnt, two of its pumps completely destroyed by fire, witnesses said.

"Last night there were a lot of fights, people were furious due to the sudden decision," said a 55-year-old pump attendant, who asked for his name not to be used.

Those who missed the midnight deadline still faced long lines early on Wednesday in a country where many see abundant and cheap fuel as a right, even after government in May hiked the liter price by 25 percent to 1,000 rials (11 U.S. cents).

Despite its huge energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and must import about 40 percent of its gasoline, a sensitive issue when world powers have threatened new U.N. sanctions in a row with Tehran over its nuclear program.

"It is still crowded this morning because many people left last night without fuel," the attendant in northern Tehran said. As he spoke, scuffles broke out among some waiting car owners.

Iranian news agencies reported long queues for gasoline also in other cities in OPEC's number two oil producer.

Some lawmakers were urgently drafting a bill to stop rationing, the official IRNA news agency said, without saying how many they were…

Will the gas crunch provide sufficient motivation to persuade Iranians to rise up and turf out the mullahs? Stay tuned.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:33 | link | comments

Tony baloney: It looks like Tony Blair, who ends his run as British Prime Minister today, won’t be out of work for long. The Quartet of nations dedicated to the proposition of Peace in Our Time at Any Cost has earmarked him for the "crucial" post of Middle East envoy. As Reuters reports, Tony will be charged with a near-impossible task:

[The] United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- would ask Blair to work with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on building up institutions needed for a future state.

Washington's goal is to relaunch statehood talks with Abbas in the occupied West Bank despite Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip. Israel has resisted U.S. pressure to negotiate so-called final status issues: the fate of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and borders.

Yes, let’s sink vast more quantities of shekels into the Palestinian money pit. Heaven knows, the world hasn’t squandered nearly enough cash on what has become a permanent work-in-progress.

 

And by all means, let’s employ some of that Quartet Viagra to try to reinflate the flaccid fortunes of Moo Abbas. He’s clean, well-groomed, and, most important, he’s willing to play along with the charade.

 

As for those so-called final status issues—there is only one solution that makes any sense: Jerusalem remains under Israeli control as the official capital of the Jewish state; Palestinian “refugees” finally stop being seen as “refugees” and become citizens of the nations where they currently reside; and the borders remain as is.

 

There. Problem solved.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:17 | link | comments

Poetry in motion: Hot Air has a video of a Ted Kennedy election ad that it has titled “The Love Song of Edward M. Kennedy.” In “homage” to both the Senate fossil and my favourite antisemitic poet, I have reworked portions of a poem that I once committed to memory, and could probably still recite in toto with very little prompting:

Let us go then, you and I,

When the evening is spread out against the sky

Like me, Ted Kennedy, three sheets to the winds

And passed out under the table.

Let us toddle down the same old well-travelled streets

The Democrats’ retreats,

From despots who want America to go to hell.

And know how to scream, and rant, and yell.

Streets that aging baby boomers recall with pathetic nostalgia

For times gone by.

Oh, do not ask, “Why are they still so blind now.”

Instead, realize what has messed up their minds now.

 

In the room Nancy Pelosi comes and goes.

Wearing a hijab and striking a pose…

 

No, I am not my brothers,

Nor was ever meant to be.

Am an attendant son,

One who will have to do

Because the others aren’t around

To direct a scene or two.

So I’ll advise the princess; Hillary Clinton, that is.

And be deferential, and full of high fizz.

Deferential, thrilled to be of use,

Politic, incautious, not too meticulous;

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;

At times, indeed, quite ridiculous—

On more than one occasion that I prefer not to recall, the Fool.

 

I grow old…I grow old…

It’s high time to give it a rest, I’m often told.

 

Shall I go on another day? Well, what else do I have to do?

I shall be an elder statesman,

An eminence grise,

If that's okay with you.

And I will keep on plugging away, until I’m good and through…

 

I have lingered in the chambers of the Senate,

With interns, with their hair streaked blonde and sandy.

But, luckily, I’m old—and not so randy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:20 | link | comments

Spinal confusion: Mark Steyn attributed the Crown’s decision to honour Salman Rushdie with a knighthood to multiculti cluelessness. Daniel Pipes says it was due to the “insouciance” of Rushdie’s friends, including Christopher Hitchens, who assumed that the little matter of the Islamist vendetta against Rushdie was a thing of the past.

Either way, Pipes insists the knighthood is definitely no indication that the invertebrate Brits have suddenly generetated a spine. From the New York Sun:

…I warned Mr. Rushdie in 1998 against his giddy insistence on being in the clear. For one, the edict remained in place; Iranian leaders do not believe themselves competent to undo it (a point reiterated by an ayatollah, Ahmad Khatami, just the other day). For another, freelancers around the globe could still nominate themselves to fulfill Khomeini's call to action.

But Mr. Rushdie and his friends ignored these apprehensions. Christopher Hitchens, for example, thought Mr. Rushdie had returned to normal life. That became conventional wisdom; such insouciance and naïveté — rather than "backbone" — best explains awarding the knighthood.

I welcome the knighting because, for all his political mistakes, Mr. Rushdie is indeed a fine novelist. I wish I could agree with Mr. Dhume that this recognition of him suggests "the pendulum has begun to swing" in Britain against appeasing radical Islam.

But I cannot. Instead, I draw two conclusions: First, Mr. Rushdie should plan around the fact of Khomeini's edict being permanent, to expire only when he does. Second, the British government should take seriously the official Pakistani threat of suicide terrorism, which amounts to a declaration of war and an operational endorsement. So far, it has not done that.

Other than an ambassadorial statement of "deep concern," Whitehall insists that the minister's threat will not harm a "very good relationship" with Pakistan. It has even indicated that Mr. Ijaz ul-Haq is welcome in Britain if on a private visit. (Are suicide bombers also welcome, so long as they are not guests of the government?) Until the Pakistani authorities retract and apologize for Mr. Ijaz ul-Haq's outrageous statement, London must not conduct business as usual with Islamabad.

Now that would constitute "British backbone."

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:37 | link | comments

High hopes: Hamas’s Muppet spokesperson is p.o’d because his “movement” has been shut out of the Mideast summit. Meanwhile, in another paper, other Palestinians are p.o.’d because Israel isn’t doing nearly enough to help bolster the fortunes of Fatah’s fearful leader, Moo Abbas. According to Globe sob brother, Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon (always willing to listen to Palestinian grievances), Olmert's offer to release 250 members of Fatah currently living on Israel’s coin in prison (an offer which begs the question: Is Olmert insane?) just won’t cut it. “If Abbas is going to be supported,” says Basem Ezbadi, a political scientist at Birzeit University in Ramallah, and thus a very astute intellectual, “the Israelis need to provide him with a concrete, meaningful compromise.”

What’s the compromise? “He has to be able to say to the people ‘Hamas are a fanatic group, and only I can give you an independent state.’”

 

Yeah, that’ll work.

 

Here’s the tongue-lodged-firmly-in-cheek letter I sent the Globe:

 

So after empowering Hamas by voting it into office, and after Hamas, with support from Iran, soundly trounced Fatah in a bloody civil conflict in Gaza, the Palestinians are now demanding that Israel do more to help Fatah triumph over Hamas?

 

I think that falls under the heading “Expecting waaay too much.”

 

And, of course, I couldn’t resist updating a favourite song from my childhood:

 

Next time you’re blue

And you feel like a clue,

There’s a lot to be had

So here's a few…

 

Just what makes Islamist Hamas

Want to kick up such a big fuss?

Everyone knows Hamas

Jus'

Wants to kick up a fuss.

‘Cause it’s got high hopes.

It’s got high hopes.

It’s got “we want our holy war to fly” hopes.

So anytime you’re readin’ how

They have made a vow

To wipe Jews off the map,

Oops, there goes the rest of that Hamas,

Oops, there goes the rest of that Hamas,

Oops, there goes the rest of that Hamas crap.

 

Just what gives with Yasser’s old crew

Demanding Jews ride to their rescue?

Anyone knows Fatah’s

Cause

Should give Jews real pause.

But it's got high hopes.

It’s got high hopes.

It’s got “we can prevail if we still try” hopes.

So when those summit members whine

‘Bout Peace in Our Time

Just remember Fatah

Ain’t no better than the jihadis.

Wants to take it slower, if you please.

Aims to bring the Z.E. to its knees

Soon.

Real soon!

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:24 | link | comments

Feckless Chihuahuas: I found this item tucked away in the Globe and Mail’s “IN BRIEF” section:

Vienna -- Acting on a request from Iran, the IAEA said yesterday it will send a team to Tehran to work jointly on a plan meant to clear up suspicions about the Islamic republic's nuclear activities.

The invitation, conveyed Sunday by a senior Iranian envoy, was portrayed by some diplomats as a positive step in IAEA attempts to learn more about past activities that could point toward a weapons program. The invitation was linked to a recent Iranian offer to stop stonewalling the agency in its probe of more than two decades of Iranian nuclear activities, clandestine until 2002 when they were revealed by a dissident group. Reuters

So you mean the only reason we know about the mully-bullies’ nuclear plans is because a dissident group, and not the designated international watchdog, revealed them?

 

Then why did the Chihuahua-in-chief and his useless organization—now preparing to work in concert with the mullahs in order to “clear up suspicions” (but in all likelihood, not the nukes)—get the Nobel Peace Prize? By all rights, it should have gone to the dissidents.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:05 | link | comments

Old Muppets never die…they just become spokesmen for Hamas: Ever wonder what happens to old Muppets once they retire? Well, one of them, Fozzy Bear, seems to have “reverted” to Islam, moved to Gaza and become a spokesman for what Toronto Star scribe Oakland Ross calls “the Hamas movement.”

Here’s Fozzy—now known as “Fawzy”—expressing his displeasure at how “the Hamas movement” has been passed over in favour of Fatah. You will notice that Fozzy’s media experience serves him in good stead here, as Ross eagerly records his every fatuous statement and does his level best to make Hamas sound, er, on the level: 

GAZA CITY–Hamas says no.

When it comes to negotiating a Middle Eastern peace without its participation – or trying to – the radical Islamic movement says it just won't work.

"We believe in unity of land and people," declared Fawzy Barhoom, chief spokesperson for the movement that seized control of the Gaza Strip and its 1.5 million people in bitter fighting earlier this month.

"The national Palestinian project has to be implemented by all," he said.

As far as Hamas is concerned, a summit of Israeli and Arab leaders in Egypt yesterday marked a step backward in the search for Mideast peace, at least in part because Hamas was not invited to participate.

"We consider the summit as a negative and unjustified step," said Barhoom.

The organization was conspicuous by its absence from the list of those meeting at Sharm el-Sheik, a summit attended by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and the leaders of Jordan and host Egypt, both of which have signed peace treaties with Israel.

Barhoom warned that such gatherings are really aimed at persuading other Arab states to accept the status quo between Israel and the Palestinian territories.

He called on Jordan and Egypt to instead support Palestinian claims against Israel, including the status of Jerusalem, the return of nearly five million Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of agreed-upon borders between Israel and a future Palestine.

"We are against any type of splitting of Palestinians," said Barhoom.

This impoverished, war-battered territory is slowly picking up the pieces following a week of shocking violence earlier this month that pitted Hamas against its chief Palestinian rival for military and political power, Fatah – a six-day shootout that left nearly 200 people dead.

Barhoom blamed Fatah for most of the recent traumas afflicting Palestinians and also held senior Fatah officials – notably top security adviser Mohammed Dahlan – responsible for the continued captivity of British TV reporter Alan Johnston, kidnapped more than three months ago in Gaza.

"From the beginning, we in Hamas have condemned this kind of treatment of journalists," he said.

Barhoom was responding to an alarming video posted on the Internet yesterday by Johnston's captors, an outfit calling itself the Army of Islam but generally considered to be a front for the territory's criminal Dagmoush clan.

The BBC journalist was shown wearing what he said was an explosive vest, which his captors have vowed to detonate if either Hamas or Britain attempts to secure his freedom by force.

Barhoom said Dahlan had promised the Dagmoush clan millions of dollars and weapons if they continue to hold the reporter, in order to deny Hamas the public-relations coup of securing his release. "It may take more time," he said, "because of this criminal group."…

 

“This crimimal group”? Nice to see that even though Fozzie has become spokesman for a bunch of genocidal Islamo-fascist thugs, he has managed to retain his antic sense of humour.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:26 | link | comments

Pants suit: A Washington D.C. court has ruled that a disgruntled dry cleaning customer—disgruntled because the dry cleaners, which had promised customer satisfaction, lost his pants—won’t receive the $54 million he had sued for to compensate for the loss.

All I can say is that must have been some nice pair of pants.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:58 | link | comments

Fun faith (female division): Want to know what devout Muslim women in Muslim countries do for fun? From the I.O. post below, it seems, not a whole heck of a lot; fun is the domain of the men. And really, how much fun can you have when you’re shut away in purdah?

But if you read Janice Broddy’s 1989 anthropological study, Wombs and Alien Spirits (mentioned today in an earlier post), you will discover that in parts of Africa, and specifically, in a village in Sudan, women have a novel and time-honoured way to burst out of their boredom. Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on how you look at it—the bursting entails being possessed by a red jinn, or zar. (Apparently, jinn come in three shades—black, white and red. The black ones are wicked, the white ones are good and the red ones are, well, somewhere in between.)

 

Here’s what a woman in this village can do if she’s not possessed: obsess about her fertility, for which she bears sole responsibility, and upon which her entire social status hinges. If she manages to successfully produce some children, especially sons, she has the chance to remain married and live long enough to become a bossy old Grandma butting into the lives of her progeny and their young’uns—the supreme status for women in this culture. If she fails to reproduce, miscarries and/or has stillbirths, her husband will likely summarily divorce her by reciting “I divorce thee” three times, and she will probably never get to be an intrusive Bubbie.

 

Here’s what a woman in this village can do if she is possessed: smoke, drink, sing raucous, sexually suggestive songs and dance the Sudanese version of the hootchie kootchie. In other words, a woman with no external genitals who spends most of her time tending to women’s work behind closed doors has society’s sanction to kick up her heels like Britney Spears during a night on the town. The one proviso: a woman can only behave this way within the context of a public ritual. But since sacrificing and roasting a goat is usually part of the proceedings, it’s a very enjoyable kind of ritual—dinner and a show.

 

There are all sorts of different zars, each one generally conforming to a recognized “type” (the Ethiopian zar; the Western infidel zar; the black African zar being just a few of them—reminiscent of the Commedia dell’arte, but with lots more characters). It doesn’t really matter which zar is doing the possessing; what matters is that everyone believes that the zar holds the key to a woman’s fertility, and that if a husband wants his wife to become pregnant he must comply with the zar’s requests, no matter how outlandish or expensive they might be. In essence, the zar "kidnaps" a woman's fertility, and her husband is forced to pay a ransom in order to release it.

 

As I was reading the book—which may well be strangest and most unintentionally hilarious work I have ever read—I couldn’t help thinking that never in a million years could I be an anthropologist. The reason: were I doing a field study in a remote and backward location, and the women I was studying were to tell me in all seriousness that they were inhabited by cheeky “spirits”—oftentimes by many at once; and further, that they could evade blame for fertility problems (for which they would otherwise be held exclusively responsible) by deflecting it onto the zar(s); and further, that because of these spirits, their husbands were obliged to give them stuff; and further, that once they came down with this “illness”, they could act like Paris Hilton pre-jail sentence; and further, that once “possessed,” one could never be “cured”, and could expect the zar to keep showing up again and again, like a case of herpes (only much more fun and far more profitable); and further, that at least two thirds of the women in the village were said to be “possessed”: sorry, folks, I don’t think I’d be able to continue my studies because I’d be rolling on the ground, unable to contain my laughter. (In which case, they might think that I was “possessed," too.)

 

Good thing I’m a cranky contrarian and not an anthropologist.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:01 | link | comments

Fun faith: In Islam Online’s popular “Ask about Islam” feature, someone poses the following question:

Hello, I wonder if you can help me. I am working on a documentary about Muslim stereotypes and I wondered if anyone can tell me what people of the Muslim faith might do for fun in their country (e.g., Turkey and Saudi Arabia have a history of belly dancers). Any suggestions would be helpful…

 

Here’s an excerpt from the lengthy—and most helpful—response:

 

…In Islam, having fun is acceptable as long as it's not done excessively or to the exclusion of duties, and does not violate any religious or ethical code.

On the collective level, Muslims do the same things that all other people do for fun: attend social gatherings, especially for weddings, births, and other special occasions; play indoor and outdoor games; go out to cafés, restaurants, Internet cafés, movies, and malls; play sports (especially football [soccer], which is really popular in the Arab world where I am from); and watch television, and so on.

Of course, many of the practices are also different among cultures. For example, alcohol and other recreational drugs are forbidden in Islam, so these are not usually present in social gatherings.

Another example is what men do for fun here in Egypt (where I am from): They go hang out in cafés (which are the equivalent of pubs in the West) and chat and play backgammon.

I give you these examples to share with you the complexity of Muslim life and the fact that what applies to the world applies to Muslims — although going to a café per se is valid Islamically, playing backgammon is frowned upon because playing with dice is blameworthy as it puts emphasis on chance. Still, for better or worse, this is what the majority of Muslim men in a Muslim country like Egypt do.

As for the example of belly dancing you mentioned, although in public situations (all situations that include anyone other than a woman's husband) because of its eroticism, it is Islamically invalid, but still it is done. By the way, it is not widespread in Saudi Arabia. It is found more in Turkey and Egypt…

Well, no one ever accused the home of the Committee of the Propogation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice of being “fun.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:39 | link | comments

Burkini beach: A body that advises the British government on issues pertaining to religious education has called for schools in a section of London to allow Muslim girls to wear “burkinis” for instructional swim.

The word burkini, as Islam Online explains, “is derived from the words burqa (a head-to-ankle dress) and a bikini.”

 

Like you couldn’t figure that out.

 

The burkini sounds like it could look like this. But it actually looks like this. So you can see that the only thing it has in common with this is that both are intended for use in the water.

 

Here's the I.O. report:

 

CAIRO — A British government advisory body has issued a set of recommendations for schools in the western London borough of Ealing on dealing with Muslim students for "success through diversity," The Daily Mail reported on Sunday, June 24.

"The guidance suggests that the pools allow these burkinis," said Nora Leonard, one of the authors of guidelines issued by the Ealing council's Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE).

"I have spoken to the firm which runs our pools and they are all in favor of it."

The Guidance for Schools with Muslim Pupils asked schools to let Muslim girls wear the head-to-toe burkinis in swimming lessons.

The governmental advisory body cited complaints by an increasing number of Muslims that the conventional swimming costumes violate their Islamic beliefs.

"Swimming facilities in the borough do not allow girls to wear full leotards and leggings in the pool for health and safety reasons," said the guideline.

Authors said adopting the burkini would stop Muslim girls from trying to cover their bodies with other unsuitable clothing.

"Schools are being encouraged to allow burkinis because of that," Leonard said…

Also, because if you wear a real burqa in the pool, you’re apt to plummet to the bottom like a rock.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:19 | link | comments

Garton Ash’s multiculti message: There’s a rather confused peroration by Timothy Garton Ash in the Los Angeles Times. Garton Ash, long one of slippery Salafist Tarik Ramadan’s biggest boosters, says the Brits were well within their rights to honour Salman Rushdie’s contributions to literature with a knighthood. At the same time, however, in a free society one musn’t expect that everyone will behave rationally, and part of the price of freedom is that we must be prepared to tolerate the intolerance of those who don’t (behave rationally, that is): 

…The right to free speech is not unlimited. In determining its limits, context matters.

American Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed that a man should not be free to shout a false alarm of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Now, the fact is that even if a secular liberal intellectual were to say, "Mad Mullah X deserves to be shot," the likelihood that someone would go out and shoot Mullah X as a result is close to zero. There are no al-Darwinia brigades practicing bomb making in secret laboratories, awaiting an order from their beloved imam Richard Dawkins to assassinate Mullah X.

If, however, a Muslim cleric or intellectual says, "Salman Rushdie deserves to be shot," there are people out there who may take it literally. Remember that Rushdie's Japanese translator was murdered, his Italian translator was stabbed and his Norwegian publisher attacked because Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had called for everyone involved in propagating "The Satanic Verses" to be punished. Because of this explosive context, Muslim speakers need to exercise a particular care in their choice of words.

We non-Muslims need, in return, to be generously clear about the distinction between what a free society requires of them and what we merely desire. We may desire that they abandon what we regard as outmoded superstitions, that they "see reason," become modern, liberal and secular. But, in a free society, nobody should require that of them.

The toleration of widely differing opinions and beliefs is precisely what distinguishes a free society from the ideological regimes of the Middle East. Rushdie wrote a fiction that was deeply offensive to many Muslims. Muslims have the right to be deeply offensive back. Indeed, they have the perfect right to articulate positions that we may regard as irrational, retrograde and oppressive. All that a free society requires of them — as of every other citizen — is that they conduct this argument peacefully and obey the law of the land…

Garton Ash fails to explain how peaceful argument is even possible with citizens who are in the grip of outmoded superstitions that make them irrational, retrograde as well as of their blooming minds.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:41 | link | comments

Crazy, mixed-up organs: In an article about the pervasiveness of female genital mutilation in Egypt—the World Health Organization puts the prevalence of FGM there at more than 95 percent—Toronto Star scribe Oakland Ross offers the following reassurance:

Female circumcision is frequently misconstrued as an Islamic custom but it has no basis in any religion. In Egypt, it is just as common among Christians, who make up about 20 per cent of the population.

 

Good to know. Totally false, mind you, but good to know.

 

I have no idea why Christian girls in Egypt are being brutalized in this way—a matter of “when in Rome, do as the Romans do,” perhaps? But I know for a fact that the reason Muslim girls in Egypt and other parts of Africa have their dangly bits removed has a lot to do with their religion. Here’s the letter I sent to enlighten Mr. Ross and the Star’s multiculti bien pensants:

 

While it is true that there is nothing in the Koran that calls for female genital mutilation, and that Christian girls in Egypt are subjected to the same brutal procedure, it is also true that when Muslim girls are “circumcised,” their religion is used to justify it. In her riveting memoir, Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was born in Somalia, recalls how it was used as the pretext for her mutilation, and recounts her harrowing and excruciating operation—as well as that of her younger sister, who never recovered from the mental trauma of the ritual and later committed suicide.

 

A clue to what’s really going on here can be found in the 1989 book Wombs and Alien Spirits, a study of Muslim women in a town in northern Sudan. According to the author, Janice Broddy, a professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto, both male and female circumcision are perceived as serving a specific—and a specifically Islamic—purpose. The male foreskin is seen as being like a “veil” over the penis, and since a veil betokens femininity, it must be removed so the penis can be de-feminized and become fully “male.” Similarly, the clitoris is considered to be too much like a penis, and must be removed in order to de-masculinize women—who according to Islamic teachings are given to uncontrollable fits of sexual passion—and render them more docile, “female” and suitable for marriage.

 

Thus, it’s going to be an uphill battle of massive proportions to try to persuade women to give up a practice that strikes at the very core of their identity—both as women and as Muslims.

 

Penises with veils; vaginas with little penises—no wonder they’re so sexually messed up.

 

Update: What timing! The Grand Mufti of Egypt has just announced a ban on FMG, a rite he calls un-Islamic.

 

It remains to be seen if this pronouncement has any impact on the age-old practice. It has already been banned by the government of Egypt, with no apparent reduction in the number of genital renovations.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:54 | link | comments

Contemptible constitution: It was a hard fought battle, but at the end of day Great Britain has ceded its last shed of sovereignty to a behemoth known as the EU Constitution. Melanie Phillips is withering in her contempt for the obnoxious beast. From the Daily Mail:

…Even by its own ruthless standards, the scale of the intended deceit and the railroading of its own procedures to ensure that it gets away with it are truly breathtaking.

What actually happened in last Saturday's pre-dawn diplomatic brawl in Brussels was that Mr Blair's red lines turned into the colour of fudge and then faded from sight altogether.

The supposed safeguards he secured on the core issues of foreign policy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, economic policy and criminal justice are simply not worth the paper they are written on.

For the new treaty doesn't just extend the EU's powers.

It turns it into a constitutional freak, a bureaucratic Frankenstein's monster without a shred of democratic legitimacy, which will destroy what remains of our powers of self-government and make Mr Blair's apparent "opt-outs" absurdly irrelevant.

For example, the EU is now to have its own foreign minister.

The fact that this panjandrum will be called the EU's "high representative", which sounds like something straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan, does not detract from his power - which is to head a diplomatic service with ambassadors worldwide in pursuit of an EU foreign policy.

What's more, member states will be forced to support that policy "actively and unreservedly" - and will be barred from launching military strikes or declaring war that might be thought to damage the EU's standing.

In other words, we would be forbidden from defending our own interests and would be forced instead to do whatever the EU collectively decides...

Gee, I wonder what the high representative’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel is likely to be:

 

“I am the very model of a continental panjandrum

By looking at my C.V. it is evident where I come from.

I pinch myself sometimes because

I can’t believe I’ve plucked this plum.

Although my very office makes Ms. Phillips

Gloomy, grim and glum.

 

The office—well, it ain’t exactly stinking with democracy.

In fact it’s yet another massive European bureaucracy.

As “free” and “democratic” as a secular theocracy

You needn’t dig too deeply to perceive the rank hypocrisy.”

 

You needn’t dig too deeply to perceive the rank hypocrisy.

You needn’t dig too deeply to perceive the rank hypocrisy.

You needn’t dig too deeply to perceive the rank hypocrisy.

 

“I’m very good at siding with those plentiful Mohammedans.

I’m proud to say I qualify as one of their most eager fans.

In short, because they have the oil and a ‘slamic identity

I feel no great compunction when I shaft the Zionist entity.”

 

In short, because they have the oil and a ‘slamic identity

He feels no great compunction

When he shafts the Zionist entity...

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments

 Musical conspiracy: Some years ago I wrote a musical version of that Czarist fabrication that became a “warrant for genocide,” The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. My take, which I call “Elders!,"  was Gilbert and Sullivan married to Mel Brooks, but this version, which I found on YouTube, is more Red Hot Chilli Peppers—with a zesty ZOG twist, of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:05 | link | comments

Obama’s extreme stupidity: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has criticised those who have “hijacked” an essentially peaceful religion.

 No, not the extremists who have “distorted” Islamic teachings by resorting to jihadist violence. Obama’s concerned about the right-wing evangelical Christians who, for those of his persuasion (clueless, leftist), constitute a far graver threat. From the Boston Globe:

 

HARTFORD, Conn. --Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.

 

"But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before a national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

 

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.

 

"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its No. 1 legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

 

A call was placed to the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Coalition of America seeking comment.

 

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.

 

He was warmly received by the crowd of more than 8,000 at the cavernous Hartford Civic Center, and was introduced as "one of ours" by the Rev. John H. Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ.

 

Obama was invited to speak to the church's biennial synod more than a year ago, before he declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, Thomas said. The freshman Illinois senator was invited to talk about "how personal faith is lived out in the public square," Thomas said...

 

I don’t know and, frankly, don’t much care how Obama choses to live out his personal faith in the public square. What I do know is that I’m sure glad those right-wing evangelicals are around right now because they belong to one of the few groups in the U.S. that can be depended upon to support Israel.

 

Also, I’m pretty sure that none of them is likely to strap on some dynamite-rigged apparel and self-detonate in a crowd in the unswayable belief that that’s what Jesus requires of them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:46 | link | comments

Infernal tweeters: An item on the Ceeb website queries “where are the songbirds?”

I know where they are. They’re in the magnolia tree outside my bedroom window, chirping maniacally at 4:30 in the morning, and preventing me from falling back asleep.

 

Anyone know where I can get my hands on a BB gun?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:27 | link | comments (1)

Science and submission: Discover magazine has a special report—its July cover story—on Islam and science, and how a strict belief in the former greatly inhibits the latter:

Cairo, Egypt: “There is no conflict between Islam and science,” Zaghloul El-Naggar declares as we sit in the parlor of his villa in Maadi, an affluent suburb of Cairo. “Science is inquisition. It’s running after the unknown. Islam encourages seeking knowledge. It’s considered an act of worship.”

What people call the scientific method, he explains, is really the Islamic method: “All the wealth of knowledge in the world has actually emanated from Muslim civilization. The Prophet Muhammad said to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave. The very first verse came down: ‘Read.’ You are required to try to know something about your creator through meditation, through analysis, experimentation, and observation.”

Author, newspaper columnist, and television personality El-­Naggar is also a geologist whom many Egyptians, including a number of his fellow scientists, regard as a leading figure in their community. An expert in the somewhat exotic topic of biostratification—the layering of Earth’s crust caused by living organisms—El-Naggar is a member of the Geological Society of London and publishes papers that circulate internationally. But he is also an Islamic fundamentalist, a scientist who views the universe through the lens of the Koran.

Religion is a powerful force throughout the Arab world—but perhaps nowhere more so than here. The common explanation is that the Egyptian people, rich and poor alike, turned to God after everything else failed: the mess of the government’s socialist experiment in the 1960s; the downfall of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arab nationalism; the military debacle of the 1967 war with Israel; poverty; inept government—the list goes on.

I witness firsthand the overlapping strands of history as I navigate the chaos of Cairo, a city crammed with 20 million people, a quarter of Egypt’s population. In residential neighborhoods, beautiful old buildings crumble, and the people who live in them pile debris onto rooftops because there is no public service to take it away. Downtown, luxury hotels intermingle with casinos, minarets, and even a Pizza Hut. The American University in Cairo is a short distance from Tahrir Square, a wide traffic circle where bruised old vehicles brush pedestrians who make the perilous crossing. At all hours men smoke water pipes in city cafés; any woman in one of these qawas would almost certainly be a foreigner. Most Egyptian women wear a veil, and at the five designated times a day when the muezzins call, commanding the Muslims to pray, the men come, filling the city’s mosques.

The Islamic world looms large in the history of science, and there were long periods when Cairo—in Arabic, El Qahira, meaning “the victorious”—was a leading star in the Arabic universe of learning. Islam is in many ways more tolerant of scientific study than is Christian fundamentalism. It does not, for example, argue that the world is only 6,000 years old. Cloning research that does not involve people is becoming more widely accepted. In recent times, though, knowledge in Egypt has waned. And who is accountable for the decline?

El-Naggar has no doubts. “We are not behind because of Islam,” he says. “We are behind because of what the Americans and the British have done to us.”

We are not behind because of Islam. We are behind because of what the Americans and the British have done to us.

The evil West is a common refrain with El-Naggar, who, paradoxically, often appears in a suit and tie, although he is wearing a pale green galabiyya when we meet. He says that he grieves for Western colleagues who spend all their time studying their areas of specialization but neglect their souls; it sets his teeth on edge how the West has “legalized” homosexuality. “You are bringing man far below the level of animals,” he laments. “As a scientist, I see the danger coming from the West, not the East.”

He hands me three short volumes he has written about the relationship of science and Islam. These include The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Holy Koran, and Treasures in the Sunnah, A Scientific Approach, parts one and two, along with a translation of the Koran, whose title page he has signed, although his name does not appear as a translator.

In Treasures in the Sunnah, El-Naggar interprets holy verses: the hadiths, sayings of the Prophet, and the sunnah, or customs. There are scientific signs in more than one thousand verses of the Koran, according to El-Naggar, and in many sayings of the Prophet, although these signs often do not speak in a direct scientific way. Instead, the verses give man’s mind the room to work until it arrives at certain conclusions. A common device of Islamic science is to cite examples of how the Koran anticipated modern science, intuiting hard facts without modern equipment or technology. In Treasures of the Sunnah, El-Naggar quotes scripture: “and each of them (i.e., the moon and the sun) floats along in (its own) orbit.” “The Messenger of Allah,” El-Naggar writes, “talked about all these cosmic facts in such accurate scientific style at a period of time when people thought that Earth was flat and stationary. This is definitely one of the signs, which testifies to the truthfulness of the message of Muhammad.”…

Further along in the article another Egyptian man of science, a chemistry professor at Cairo U, assures the Discovery scribe, Todd Pitnick, that Islam and science are completely compatible:

 

“Islam has no problems with science,” he says. “As long as what you do does not harm people, it is permitted. You can study what you want, you can say what you want.”

 

What about, say, evolutionary biology or Darwinism? I ask. (Evolution is taught in Egyptian schools, although it is banned in Saudi Arabia and Sudan.) “If you are asking if Adam came from a monkey, no,” Badawy responds. “Man did not come from a monkey. If I am religious, if I agree with Islam, then I have to respect all of the ideas of Islam. And one of these ideas is the creation of the human from Adam and Eve. If I am a scientist, I have to believe that.”

But from the point of view of a scientist, is it not just a story? I ask. He tells me that if I were writing an article saying that Adam and Eve is a big lie, it will not be accepted until I can prove it.

“Nobody can just write what he thinks without proof. But we have real proof that the story of Adam as the first man is true.”

“What proof?”

He looks at me with disbelief: “It’s written in the Koran.”

Silly infidel! What more "proof" do you need?

The one bright spot in this vast region of darkness: Tunisia. That’s because, as a government official who didn’t want to be named article explains,

“We have succeeded in keeping extremism and that mentality out of our schools and institutions,” says a government official who asks not to be named. “We are an island of 10 million people in a sea of Islamists. The extremists want to remove the buffer between religion and everything else, including science. There has to be a buffer between religion and science.”

And this buffer—“the closest thing in the Arab world to separation of mosque and state—allows for the kind of free inquiry allows for the kind of free inquiry that is anathema in other, more devout countries. As well, it allows for another type of free inquiry that is generally verboten elsewhere:

“Islamic science” is not a university subject here, as it is in Egypt; “Islamology,” which looks critically at Islamic extremism, is.

Another critical difference:

In contrast to the situation in Egypt, where even the most Western-oriented scientist I talked to at some point or other declares himself to be “a good Muslim,” in Tunisia the personal religious views of scientists I meet hardly seem relevant.

A voice of reason can be found in an unlikely quarter. It belongs to prince El Hassan bin Talal, the brother of King Hussein, the late king of Jordan:

[Hassan] is also candid, calling suicide bombers “social rejects” and questioning the validity of those who would take the Muslim world back to the times of the Prophet Muhammad. “Are we talking Islam or Islamism?” he asks, pointing out the difference between the religion and those extremists who use the religion to advance their own agendas. “The danger [posed by Islamists] is not only to Christians but also to Islam itself. The real problem is not the Arab-Israel issue but the rise of Islamism.”

Science, rather than religion, is the way to ensure a country’s future, Prince Hassan believes, and he has made supporting scientific achievement a personal mission for almost 40 years. He envisions projects that would promote regional partnerships, including with Israel—an idea that, despite official peace between the countries, remains controversial.

Hassan would now be king if his brother hadn’t passed him over in favour of his Beaver Cleaver-resembling spawn.

Another opportunity lost.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:25 | link | comments

Animal crackers: Jonathan Isby, a blogger on the Telegraph site, has a post about London Mayor Ken Livingstone and his ideas re an appropriate mascot for his city’s Olympics:

…[In] an interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC 97.3FM, Livingstone waded in with the following thoughts: "China’s got five coloured dolls representing earth, fire, forest and so on and Moscow had a bear," he said. "It would be the sort of thing you’d want to take home for your kids as a fluffy toy, so we shouldn’t have too much problems with that. What animal signifies London? The rat or the pigeon," he concluded.

Ken the Rat as the 2012 masoct.(sic) There's a thought...

And maybe his co-mascot can be George the Pigeon.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

Rumour has it: There’s an alarming rumour making the rounds. It goes something like this: The EU may be willing to “lower the bar” in discussions with Iran, meaning the EUnuchs have already decided there's no way they can get Iran to give up its nuclear plans. Well, Condoleeza Rice wants us to know that there is absolutely, positively no truth to that rumour. And because she seems to be so vehement in her denial (she “protesteth too much”?) it sounds like there may well be immense truth to it (as there was to the Gitmo rumour, also resolutely denied at first). From Fox News:

PARIS —  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice maintained a firm line Sunday against efforts to soften conditions for Iran to enter talks over its disputed nuclear program, dismissing as "chatter" discussions among U.S. allies about a new approach.

British, French and German officials have begun debating whether to tolerate something less than a full freeze on Iran's work to enrich uranium, an ingredient for both civilian nuclear power or a bomb, officials in Vienna told The Associated Press on Friday.

Germany was supportive of such a concession, while France was opposed and Britain noncommittal, said the officials, who included U.S. and European diplomas and government employees. They said the talks were preliminary, and that nothing had been decided.

"I don't know where that's coming from," Rice said en route to France for two days of get-to-know-you meetings with the new, conservative-led French government and a strategy session on the violence and refugee crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.

Rice said in her discussions with other diplomats she has sensed no willingness to back off conditions that Iran's European and United Nations negotiating partners had set to begin formal talks.

Iran must stop, or suspend, its disputed activity during negotiations, so that it cannot continue to perfect its nuclear expertise while also bargaining to give it up.

 

Iran has refused, and sped up its enrichment work. Estimates vary, but Iranian scientists are fast mastering the difficult steps involved in nuclear development. Some experts, including the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, have suggested that time may be running out for talks on the terms Rice and others want.

Iran insists its nuclear work is aimed only at developing nuclear energy, and says it will not give up its right to work toward that goal. For the Iranians, the program has become a matter of national pride. The United States and some other nations are convinced Tehran is secretly working to build nuclear weapons.

"My counterparts when I talk to them are not interested in lowering the bar," Rice said. "There may well be chatter, and I'll call it chatter," Rice said, about other options, but she did not sound concerned about divisions within the international coalition arrayed against Iran.

Rice dismissed one possible half-measure _ a partial suspension of the activities that most concern the West, and U.N. monitoring of any ongoing work.

"I don't know what partial suspension means," Rice said, adding that to her the term means all or nothing. "I don't know what partial suspension would look like, and it doesn't seem to me to be a very wise course."…

Allow me to fill you in, Ms. Rice. “Partial suspension” means the lit’ler Hitler would be able to make some nukes, but maybe not as many as he’d like to make. In other words, the EUnuchs would allow him to drop an A-bomb on what he likes to call the Jewish “blot,” just so long as he doesn’t aim nukes any at them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Harpoon calls for dhimmitude: Harpoon Siddiqui says the jig is up and the triumph of Islamism is a fait accompli. Canadians must now decide with whom to side—with the victors (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and their state sponsors) or with the vanquished (the U.S.):

The United States is spending $80 million to train and equip Mahmoud Abbas' Presidential Guard.

In Kabul, Hamid Karzai dare not move out of the cocoon of his elaborate American security. In Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki must stay mostly in the American Green Zone.

That's not the only common thread in West Bank/Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The occupying powers are presiding over civil wars among terrorized peoples in collapsing societies run by militias, some funded directly or indirectly by the occupiers.

In Iraq and West Bank/Gaza, the people who could leave have. Those left behind survive on handouts of two kinds: banned but smuggled foreign funds subject to confiscation, or official aid subject to cancellation should the subjects misbehave, such as voting for Hamas.

In Afghanistan, people stave off hunger by cultivating opium crops, which are subject to erratic policies of eradication and tolerance.

Add to this the broader picture of American-Israeli alliances with such oligarchs as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan and the sheikhs of oil kingdoms.

These "moderates" want peace with Israel (good) but they cannot deliver it (bad). So they must strike poses: holding summits, such as the one tomorrow by Mubarak, Abdullah and Abbas in Sharam el-Sheikh, and issuing rote proclamations about peace, which their media, and ours, record dutifully.

But the game has run its course.

In the Middle East and beyond, American embassies and consulates, with their bulletproof walls and barriers and bunkers and tanks, are today's Crusader forts.

In the zones of conflict, including Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and Iraqi Shiite and Sunni militias are empowered – as are their paymasters, Iran, Syria and official and private circles in Pakistan and the sheikhdoms.

People everywhere are radicalized. Terrorism is on the rise.

At this point, realizing he may be giving the game away, Harpoon backs off a bit and tosses the gullible multicultists a bone—sort of:

The most obvious way out of this crisis is to end the occupations, forge peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and ditch the dictators and monarchs for democracy.

The most "obvious way," perhaps, but not the way Harpoon would like us to go—certainly not a "way" he's on side with: He'd prefer we "submit." How do we know this? Because the whole idea of regional democracy is so unpleasant, so distasteful, that he devotes an entire 28 words to it. He then spends the remainder of his column demolishing the notion and advising us to accept our inevitable defeat:

Israel and the United States are ostensibly committed to these goals. But they have a million excuses that they are being thwarted by indigenous forces of evil.

In other words, Israel and the U.S. (the real bad guys) lack the strength to prevail over “indigenous forces” who, Harpoon wants you to know (but is too clever to come right out and say so) aren’t really “evil”.

It is in this context that one must view the prospect of Tony Blair becoming the special envoy for the Quartet – the U.S., the UN, the E.U. and Russia – which was to bring about a two-state solution by 2005. The last envoy, James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, quit in frustration last year, blocked at every turn from easing the political, social and economic strangulation of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip.

And the UN's envoy, Alvaro de Soto, has just been quoted as saying that his mission was "pummelled into submission" by the Americans. He has also accused the U.S. of actively pushing for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas.

There are other reports as well of how the U.S.-funded Fatah security forces, led by Mohammed Dahlan, known as the Pinochet of Palestine, systematically sabotaged Hamas, especially the unity government forged in March, through murder and mayhem.

Rather than resisting this disastrous agenda, Canada is an active participant in it, thanks to Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Had either been in power in 2003, we would have been plunged into Iraq as well.

Canadian public opinion has forced Harper to commit himself to ending our Afghan mission in February 2009, which NATO was hoping to extend.

Canadians, always eager to help rebuild, have been balking for good reason: They do not want our troops to be the cannon fodder for America's endless warfare.

America’s endless warfare?! More like the endless jihad—thirteen hundred years and counting.

 

There is only one thing left to say: Stick it in your ear, Harpoon. There’ll be no bowing and scraping to Islamic overlords for this gal!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

Rules for seething: Michelle Malkin has a piece about the Rushdie seethe-a-thon which she opens by citing “Jihadi's Guide to Etiquette Rule 11: Never leave home without your matches, effigy-hanging sticks and death threat placards. You never know when they'll come in handy.” 

Here are rules one through ten:

 

1.     Practice your angry gestures (arm-waving, fist-shaking, facial contortions, etc.) in the mirror at home before the protest. It’ll help you look more convincing during the actual event.

 

2.     Try to work up a good head of steam before you leave the house. That way, you’ll be able to reach your maximum seethe capacity much sooner.

 

3.     Wear loose-fitting clothing. Depending on the infidel outrage being protested, seething can raise the core body temperature by an average of at least three degrees, and loose garments allow the heat to dissipate more quickly so as to help prevent heat prostration and/or apoplexy.

 

4.     Make sure you have comfortable footwear. There’s nothing worse than being sidelined by blisters in mid-seethe.

 

5.     It’s a good idea to follow “the buddy system.” That way a friend can notify your next of kin should you be injured in the crush/tumult and require medical attention.

 

6.     Bring the kids! Why should they be left out of the fun?

 

7.     It is not appropriate to set up a kebab stand along the protest route.

 

8.     Some placard messages suitable for all occasions: Behead those who insult Islam; If you call me violent, I’ll have to kill you; Die, Infidel Swine.

 

9.     Don’t forget to mention the Zionists! They’re the ones who are really behind it all.

 

10.  After the event, remember to pack away your placards in a safe, dry place so they’ll be available to protest the next infidel outrage (which is no doubt coming up any day now).

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:42 | link | comments

A tale of two stand-offs: Remember a few months ago when the sailors on a British gunboat was commandeered by some Shias and the Brits behaved like a bunch of girls? (Well, actually, one of them was a girl. But still…) The Daily Mail has an account of a similar incident that occurred a few years ago when some Aussie sailors had a run-in with Iran. Only, instead of collapsing in a puddle of tears, as did one young British salt when a cruel Iranian interrogator threatened to take away his i-POD, the Aussies told the Iranians what they could do with themselves. From the Daily Mail:

It was a stand-off on the high seas like that which led to the arrest of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranians earlier this year.

But this time the potential captives were Australians and they were a little less meek in their response.

While pointing their guns straight at the heavily-armed Iranian boats, the sailors simply told the troops to "**** off". And they did.

Their no-nonsense approach was very different to that of the much-criticised crew from HMS Cornwall, whose capture in the Gulf in March led to a diplomatic crisis.

Details of the Australian incident, which occurred well before the British humiliation, emerged yesterday…

Score one for plain speaking.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:35 | link | comments

LSE myth-making: The arrow on the British Muslim seethe-o-meter is stuck at “high,” and some untutored souls might be tempted to take this as an indication that the much-touted multicultural harmony appears to  be breaking down. Perish the thought. According to a new survey by some number crunchers over at the London School of Economics, there is no disharmony, and most British Muslims define themselves first and foremost as British.

Quel relief!

From the Toronto Star:

LONDON–Despite widespread perceptions to the contrary, Britain is not experiencing any large-scale culture clash involving immigrants and minorities who refuse to think of themselves as British, according to a new analysis of government data by the London School of Economics.

The study, co-authored by LSE economist Alan Manning and based on responses to a survey of nearly 1 million Britons, concludes that the idea of Britain becoming home to a mix of mutually incompatible cultures is a "melodramatic myth."

The LSE analysis found that 99.2 per cent of British-born Muslims think of themselves as British, compared with 99.1 per cent of British-born Christians and 99.6 per cent of British-born Jews.

The study found that among foreign-born Britons, those from poorer and less-democratic countries tend to assimilate more quickly into a British identity, in part because they have a greater tendency to take up citizenship.

Manning told the Star the figures should be of particular interest to the government of Gordon Brown, who next week will take over the premiership from Tony Blair.

The incoming prime minister has signalled that he intends to make a revived sense of "Britishness" one of the hallmarks of his leadership.

"It is clear that Brown wants to address issues of British identity and driving part of this is a sense of great crisis that has taken hold of significant segments of the public," Manning noted.

"But when you look at the data with an unbiased eye, there is not a generalized problem here.

"By all means, let the government delve into issues of Britishness and immigration, which is a bit of a shambles at the moment.

"But let them be careful that their ideas don't end off creating the problem they are designed to cure."

I guess these folks must fall into that .8 per cent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:11 | link | comments

A “dignified” frenzy: British Muslims have been urged to  “act with dignity” and to protest the “Rushdie conspiracy” in a peaceful manner. 

Oops! Too late.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:52 | link | comments

The good die young…and the bad linger on until well past senescence: When Billy Joel wrote “Only the Good Die Young”, he was thinking of a recalcitrant Catholic virgin. When I rewrote the song just now, I was thinking of a sanctimonious old gasbag who penned Palestine: Peace not Apartheid:

Shut up, old Jimmy, you’re full of hot air.

Your pro-Hamas spin is a cause for despair.

Ah, but sooner or later no one’s gonna care

About what you have to say.

Well, they gave you a peace prize,

Pumped up your pride.

Now your immense ego cannot be denied.

And so you have blustered and blundered and lied

About Hamas and jihad

And Jimmy’s one of the “good” who’s bad.

That’s what I said.

One of the “good” who’s bad.

One of the “good” who’s bad.

 

You might have gotten away with your blather and tripe,

But Jew-hate’s undone you

And so has your hype.

We’re getting so weary of those of your stripe—

Useful idiots who help jihad.

So come on, old Jimmy,

Hang up your spurs.

Time to retire before more harm occurs.

A Jew nation’s present despite your demurs:

It ain’t just a passing fad.

And Jimmy’s one of the “good” who’s bad

One of the “good” who’s bad.

 

You got a nice bright prize

That some nincompoops gave you in Olso.

You got Saudi loot.

And a bestseller to boot.

I can get it really cheap over there at my local Costco.

But I’ll save my bread

‘Cause Jim’s clear out of his head.

 

Oh, whoa, whoa,

And they say there’s a Heaven for willing shaheeds.

But Jim doesn’t care ‘bout their sexual needs.

He’d rather lust in his heart than acknowledge who bleeds—

‘Cause lusting makes him so mad.

And Jimmy’s one of the “good” who’s bad.

Oh, whoa baby,

I tell ya one of the “good” who’s bad,

One of the “good” who’s bad…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments

One last time: Charles Krauthammer is usually dead on in his analysis, but after reading Daniel Pipes the other day, I think Dr. K. has strayed off course when he says Fatah head Moo Abbas should get one last chance. From indystar.com:

…But let's remember who Abbas is. He appears well intentioned, but he is afflicted with near-disastrous weaknesses. He controls little. His troops in Gaza simply collapsed against the greatly outnumbered forces of Hamas. His authority in the West Bank is far from universal. He does not even control the various factions within Fatah.

 

But the greater liability is his character. He is weak and indecisive. When he was Yasser Arafat's deputy, Abbas was known to respond to being slapped down by his boss by simply disappearing for weeks in a sulk. During the battle for Gaza, he did not order his Fatah forces to return fire against the Hamas insurrection until the fight was essentially over. Remember, too, that after Arafat's death Abbas ran the Palestinian Authority without a Hamas presence for more than a year. Can you name a single thing he achieved in that time?

 

Moreover, his Fatah party is ideologically spent and widely discredited. Historian Michael Oren points out that the Palestinian Authority has received more per capita aid than did Europe under the Marshall Plan. This astonishing largesse has disappeared into lavish villas for party bosses and guns for the multiple militias Arafat established.

 

The West is rushing to bolster Abbas. Israel will release hundreds of millions in tax monies. The U.S. and the EU will be pouring in aid. All praise Abbas as a cross between Anwar Sadat and Simon Bolivar. Fine. We have no choice but to support him. But before we give him the moon, we should insist upon reasonable benchmarks of both moderation and good governance. Abbas needs to demonstrate his ability to run a clean administration and to engage Israel in day-to-day negotiations to alleviate the conditions of life on the ground.

 

We can prop him up only so much. In the end, the only one who can make a success of the West Bank is Abbas himself. This is his chance. His last chance.

 

How many “last chances” can one guy get? I know Krauthammer’s training is medical and not zoological, but I would ask him this: Can a leopard change its spots? Can a tiger change its stripes? Can a weasel become a gazelle? Can a snake become an eagle?

 

Can an arafat become a Mandela?

 

They can’t? So what, other than wishful thinking, makes anyone think that old Shoah-denying Moo can suddenly “evolve” into a two-state-solution-loving statesman? And even if he could, what makes anyone think the Palestinians, the vast majority of whom are still committed to a replacement nationalism/theology in which Israel is a goner, would be inclined to follow him down that path?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments

Time for a refresher course in reality: Peter Phillip, Deutsche Welle’s chief correspondent and “a Middle East expert,” weighs in on the current anti-Rushdie frenzy.

Only the narrow-minded would interpret the manifestations of open irritation and public outrage in the streets of Tehran and Islamabad as the actual expression of the public's mood. They are not. They are rather a finely orchestrated means for the authorities to serve a purpose.

To achieve their political goals or to distract from their own problems, the "security aware" -- some may say "repressive" -- regimes allow such demonstrations: against the insulting Mohammed caricatures in Denmark, against alleged desecration of the Koran somewhere in the world or, as is currently the case, against the distinction being paid by the queen to British author Salman Rushdie.

How many demonstrators in front of the British embassies in Tehran and Islamabad today even knew who Rushdie was 14 days ago? How many may have actually read the "Satanic Verses," the book that garnered Rushdie the anger of Islamic extremists? Probably none. But that's not really the point.

In 1989, the Iranian revolutionary leader Khomeini issued a fatwa against then unknown Rushdie, and Iran put a price on the author's head. For 10 years Rushdie had to go underground and live under police surveillance until Tehran admitted that while the now deceased Khomeini's fatwa could not be revoked, it did not need to be implemented. Rushdie's life could once again return to normal.

Now that new demonstrations are being aimed at the author, it's certainly not because of the "Satanic Verses." He is, after all, being recognized for his life's work, not a single book. But Iranian and Pakistani officials describe the knighthood as a new insult to one and half billion Muslims. And the Pakistani religion minister raised the bar with the threat of a suicide attack to avenge this unfriendly act on the part of the British royal family.

As if that's not an insult against all well-meaning people around the world, regardless of their religion, skin color or language. Such statements are a slap in the face to anyone who works for understanding and freedom -- especially between cultures. That includes Muslims who believe in their religion's true messages of freedom and understanding.

The abuse of religious sentiment for political means is not a new tactic. But in the case of Iran, one had hoped that things had changed. And one even believed that they had in the case of Pakistan, a country that is an important partner in the "fight against terror."…

So in Mr. Phillip’s expert opinion Islam is purely a religion of raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and based on who the heck knows what—his own wishful thinking, perhaps?—he had hoped that things had changed in Iran?

 

Great expert you got there, DW.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:46 | link | comments

Tit for tat: The religious zanies have hit upon what they think is a sure fire way to get back at Westerners for applauding Salman Rushdie’s knighthood: giving a similar “honour” to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. From Islam Online:

KARACHI — While Christian and Hindu leaders joined their Muslim countrymen in protesting a British decision to knight controversial author Salman Rushdie, some scholars suggested honoring Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a counter action.

"Any protest against the British government is useless. They will not listen to any logic," Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, a prominent scholar and chairman of the Senate religious affairs committee, told IslamOnline.net.

He suggested that instead of protesting the British decision world Muslims should confer the title of "Sir" on Bin Laden and Taliban's leader Mullah Omer.

"In response to this step, Muslims should confer the title of Sir to bin Laden and Mullah Omer," he opined.

"The world will see the reaction of western countries if Muslims honor Bin Laden and Mullah Omer as British government did with Rushdie."…

Yeah, can you imagine the reaction? Why, the streets of London, Paris and Toronto will be teeming with seething Westerners, burning effigies of Mullah Omar and freaking out about this unwarranted insult.

 

Oh, wait. Wrong seethers.

 

I like his complaint about the Brits being the ones who refuse to “listen to any logic,” though. Considering the source, it’s awfully amusing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments

Running on empty: The National Post’s token Lefty, CFRB Radio chat-show host John Moore, is in high dudgeon today about folks who flaunt their allegiance for a cause. More specifically, he’s referring to a local flap about emergency vehicles displaying “Support Our Troops” magnets. Toronto city council, in its ineffable wisdom, had tried to get the magnets removed; it has since backed down. But Moore, who has worked up quite a head of steam about the matter, thunders that the magnets betoken something far more disturbing than support for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. They show that “We live in a society of empty gestures.”

Maybe so, John. But isn’t it interesting that you’ve glommed onto on the one gesture that you, as an unabashed Lefty, perceive as “empty”; I'm sure those who have made this gesture don’t see it that way. However, there are plenty of other causes out there—Save Darfur, Save Tibet, Save the Whale, Save the Whole Frikkin' Planet, etc.—that do afford ample opportunity for people to make empty gestures, mostly by slapping a sticker on their bumper, which often represents the sum total of their involvement in the cause. (It’s remarkable how a little gesture like that can make one feel so incredibly virtuous--but, hey, isn't that the pay-off? That and the warm and fuzzies of getting to ride around with "the cool kids" on the virtuous bandwagon.)

 

I can understand, though, why John wouldn’t want to criticize those empty gestures.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:34 | link | comments

Britainistan: An editorial in the New York Post—really, two quotations spaced eighty years apart—shows the trajectory of what was once the most powerful nation on Earth:

From Time magazine, Nov. 1, 1926, under "Trends":

"A Moslem mosque, the first in the British Isles, has been dedicated in the London suburb of Southfields. The opening ceremony was performed by Emir Feisal, king of Iraq, third son of the King of the Hedjaz. Mohammedan worshippers in England are a small but steadily growing body."

From The Associated Press newswire, June 7, 2007:

"Mohammad is the second most popular name being given to baby boys in Britain, and it's likely to beat out Jack for first place by year's end."

'Nuff said.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:26 | link | comments

Camping it up: What are the odds? As the camp season is about to get underway, word is coming out of Washington that a very special year-round facility may be getting ready to shut its doors. I offer the following song parody with profuse apologies to late peerless parodist, Allan Sherman:

Hello sistah, hello bro-oh,

Here I am at Guantanamo-oh.

Camp is rarely ever borin',

And they even gave me my own pers'nal Koran.

 

All jihadis hate the kaffirs,

So our lawyers act as buffers.

They all say, "Hey, glad to see ya."

But we hate them, too,

'Cause their law's not sharia.

 

Guess you heard about the flushin'

That's the tale that Newsweek was pushin'.

As it turns out, it was bogus.

They just wanted to upset, rile and provoke us.

 

You remember Omar Khadr,

And his brudder, and the other,

Well, seems Omar could go free now

'Cause they messed up

On some technicality now.

 

Get me out, oh, sistah, bro-oh.

Get me out, I hate this Gitmo

Don't leave me here in this awful Hell

Where I can't even meet Fidel.

Get me out, I promise to amend my ways,

And not live in a jihad haze

Of battles very old

That are retold and told and told.

 

Wait a minute,

Seems Great Satan

Has now started insinuatin'

That camp closin' would be bettah,

Sistah, bruddah, kindly disregard this lettah!

 

Update: On second thought, maybe the correspondent better send it off after all.

 

Update: Kindly disregard the previous update.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:49 | link | comments

How the mighty have fallen: An Arab nation is now the proud owner of an icon of the British nation—the Queen Elizabeth 2.

Given that the Brits have been comporting themselves like abject dhimmis, the symbolism is perfectly apt, and still rather shocking.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:52 | link | comments

We say potato and they say pahtahto: In the wake of the recent civil violence in Gaza, it has become commonplace to hear that there are now two Palestinian entities—one in Gaza ruled by Hamas and one in the West Bank ruled by Fatah. But according to this article that appeared in Middle East Forum in 2001 (and which was mentioned today on The Corner), the divisions have been there for a long time and—whadya know?—Gazans and West Bankers don’t much like each other:

…While the West Bank is only about thirty miles from Gaza, there is more separating the two territories than an expanse of the Negev Desert.

For one, the different regional patriarchal clans have always dominated local politics in the two territories. Gaza's stronger local families include the Shawwa, Shafei and Middein families. In the West Bank, the Nashishibi, Huseini, Ja'abari and Masri families are among the dominant political elite. By nature, these clans are regional, and are often at odds, since they compete for economic, political and social stature.

The notion of Palestinian regionalism is further reinforced by the varied Arabic dialects spoken throughout the territories. West Bank dialects are similar to the Jordanian dialect, while influences of Egyptian dialect are heard throughout Gaza. Speakers of the Gaza dialect, for example, tend to pronounce the Arabic word for "fish" as samag, while West Bankers typically pronounce the word as it is written in standard Arabic - samak. According to a study done at Birzeit University in Ramallah, other differences can be found in intonation and even lexicon.³ Indeed, language is often a clear indication of a Palestinian's precise origin.

The absence of intermarriage between the territories is another dividing line. While traditional marriages arranged between tribal chiefs are no longer popular among Palestinians, one study notes that "kinship-based marriage arrangements now exist as a way to preserve the continued identity of dispersed communities."⁴ These communities derive from specific, smaller areas of the former Palestine and, by nature, do not cross the West Bank-Gaza divide.

Geopolitics have also exacerbated Palestinian tribalism and limited ties between the West Bank and Gaza. After the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. With Gaza under Gamal abd al-Nasser, and the West Bank under King Hussein, who was often wary of Nasser's influence in Jordan, the two territories had minimal contact during the next two decades. As a result, a pro-Egypt, pan-Arabist movement developed in Gaza, while many Palestinians in the West Bank developed an allegiance to the Hashemite Kingdom.

The West Bank under Jordanian rule also enjoyed a growing economic infrastructure that Gaza did not. While Gaza was largely neglected under Egyptian occupation, Jordan invested heavily in West Bank civil society through 1967. With an eye towards recovering the West Bank as Jordanian land, King Hussein continued to invest in the area until 1988, even while it was under Israeli rule. Thus, over time, the West Bank has emerged as a developing mini-state, while Gaza has wallowed in neglect.

When Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza during the June 1967 War, the gap increased. Israel placed tight travel restrictions on the territories for security reasons. The West Bank, which buttresses Jordan, sustained interaction with Arab countries, but Gaza, which borders the barren Sinai peninsula, had significantly less access to the rest of the Arabic-speaking world. Even during the best days of the Oslo process, Israeli security measures prohibited free travel between Gaza and the West Bank.

Today, security measures are so tight that Gazans and West Bankers are often restricted from seeing one another. In fact, many Gazans complain of how they must first travel to Egypt and then fly to Jordan in order to make it into the West Bank.

Palestinians who declared refugee status after the Arab defeats in 1948 and 1967 also contribute to the West Bank-Gaza division. In the West Bank, only 27 percent of the population are refugees, as opposed to the 64 percent that inhabit the Gaza Strip. Rather than living in hovels and tents, many West Bankers have invested in homes or businesses.

The poverty associated with refugees directly contributes to two distinct economies. In 1997, more than 40 percent of Gazans were living below the poverty line ($650 year). That was four times the poverty rate in the West Bank, which hovered at only 11 percent. Unemployment figures before the al-Aqsa Intifada showed that 22 percent of all Gazans were unemployed, whereas only 9 percent of West Bankers were not working. And though the uprising has since taken its toll on both territories since October, Gaza is expected to be the hardest hit, with unemployment reaching 50 percent or more.

Due to these different circumstances, residents of the two areas have developed a quiet animosity toward each other. Khalil Shiqaqi, a prominent Palestinian sociologist, after conducting hundreds of interviews, notes the presence of "a psychological barrier between the inhabitants of the two territories and . . . mutual suspicion" that cannot be "disregarded or ignored."⁵

Shiqaqi's study, entitled The West Bank and Gaza Strip: Future Political and Administrative Relations, shows the existence of a prevalent West Bank belief that the Gaza Strip is "nothing but a big refugee camp."⁶ Further, West Bankers see the Gaza Strip as a backward society with "increased crime . . . and inclined to roughness, extremism, grimness, fanaticism and instability."⁷

Gazans, for their part, expressed their misgivings over the patronizing and discriminating West Bankers, who show them little respect.⁸ They also note that while Gazans are typically willing to accept the consequences of insurrection against Israel, "workers from the West Bank fill the work spots left vacant from when [Israel] prevents Gaza workers from coming to their jobs in Israel."⁹

Of particular interest is Shiqaqi's mention of the period between 1967 and 1971, when approximately 20,000 Gazans emigrated to the West Bank towns of Qalqiliya and Tulqarem. Extensive interviews revealed that during this first attempt at integration between the territories, tensions ran high. West Bankers saw their guests as messy, dishonest, less cultured, less educated and predisposed to poverty.¹⁰ Gazans felt that the local inhabitants were "racist," and treated them as "third class" citizens. ¹¹…

Good thing there’s an Israel around to act as a separation barrier between them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:37 | link | comments

He's alive!: Mansour Dadallah, the Taliban chief who assumed the august post when his brother Mullah Dadallah, the rhymin’ slime-man who was the previous Taliban chief, was dispatched to Hades, insists in an interview broadcast on Al-That-Jaz TV (translated by MEMRI) that the attenuated one is still extant.

If that’s so, what gives with the invisibility? The jihadist explains:

 

"These are simply military tactics. That's what Sheikh Osama bin Laden prefers, not to show himself. If he did appear in the media and meet with people, he might expose himself to danger. Sheikh Osama bin Laden's presence among the Muslims is an honor for us all, and we do not want him to disappear. We do not want to lose him. I also ask him to refrain from meeting anyone, and to remain in hiding. I ask him to continue to issue his instructions to the commanders, so that Al-Qaeda will continue to be active in Afghanistan, and will continue its activity throughout the world."

 

So he’s given up the photo ops out of concerns for his safety? Riiight. Surely with all his resources he could hire himself some of those big, burly bodyguards—the type who protect people like jihad-debunkers Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (I’ve actually seen Manji’s bodyguard. He makes the late Biggie Smalls look petite.)

 

More likely Osama has been pushing up daisies (or maybe poppies) for some time now, and it’s “simply military tactics” to declare otherwise.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:45 | link | comments

Dubious news agents: Arab Monitor, which bills itself as a “NEWS AGENCY on the MIDDLE EAST and the ARAB WORLD” (the usage--or, rather, misusage--of "on" being kind of a giveaway that English is likely not the agency's first language) condemns Mahmoud Abbas for launching “wild accusations about Hamas” and, even worse, straying from “Fatah’s original agenda”:

Ramallah, 21 June - Addressing the restricted audience of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's Central Council, convened for the purpose in Ramallah yesterday, Mahmoud Abbas broke all bridges with the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation. He defined Hamas a gang of murderers and accused it of having "paralyzed" the Palestinian Legislative Council, ignoring the fact that some 25 percent of the Legislative Council's members are in Israeli jails. While Mahmoud Abbas ascribed to Hamas "criminal acts which were committed against the Palestinian people, their security headquarters and churches", the German magazine Der Spiegel, in yesterday's on-line edition, described the dungeons of these security headquarters in the Gaza Strip, after they had been discovered by the Executive Forces, where Fatah militia commanded by Mohammad Dahlan, for years tortured and killed its alleged opponents, prevalently members of Hamas.

 

In a manifest break with Fatah's original agenda, the liberation of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas defined the conflict between Fatah and Hamas as a conflict between the Palestinian national project and the alleged project to set up an "emirate of darkness". He also accused Khaled Meshal, head of the Hamas movement, of having tried to assassinate him. As proof, he offered a video-cassette showing unidentifyable masked figures allegedly trying to place a bomb, their jackets visibly exposing Hamas' symbols. In his speech, Abbas complained that Meshal had refused to even consider this kind of "evidence"...

 

Sounds to me like the NEWS AGENCY on the MIDDLE EAST and the ARAB WORLD is probably little more than a gussied up shill for Hamas.

 

But then, I've often have the same thought about AP, AFP and Reuters.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:49 | link | comments

That porker won't fly: Norman Spector, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel and occasional Globe and Mail pundit, has an offering in today’s paper that has been headed Can Hamas be encouraged to make peace?

Spector opines that, all things considered, it cannot, and that we should therefore be concerning ourselves with other matters:

…What then is to be done now that Hamas has taken control there and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has retreated to his West Bank redoubt? How can Hamas be encouraged to enter into a comprehensive peace based on Canada's traditional policy of having a Palestinian state and a Jewish state living side by side?

Since it was endemic corruption that fuelled Hamas's electoral ascendancy over Fatah, any country that resumes direct financial aid to the Palestinian Authority should insist on good governance. Canada should also not go overboard in picking sides, as there's a real danger that, by embracing the already-lame Mr. Abbas, Western governments will completely destroy his credibility among Palestinians.

Though neither he nor Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in a position to push for comprehensive peace, Canada should encourage both leaders to bring about demonstrable improvements in life on the West Bank.

And while Western humanitarian assistance in Gaza will likely have to increase, the disparity between life in the two Palestinian territories must still be visible if Amartya Sen's thesis is to be given a chance to play out. In a nutshell, Gazans must be given an opportunity to internalize the consequences of their democratic decisions - to change their votes if Hamas does not explicitly change its approach to Israel, as the PLO did before them in the Oslo agreement.

Western governments will also have to ensure that Iranian funds and weapons do not reach Hamas. Here, as we've seen in the case of North Korea, pressure on international financial institutions can be effective. And Canada should be warning the Egyptians not to be surprised if Israel reasserts control of Gaza's border with Egypt, if Egyptians themselves do not do more to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Palestinian territory.

Me? I’m still stuck on the loopy headline. Here’s the letter I sent the Globe:

 

In response to the question Can Hamas be encouraged to make peace? (June 21), I would pose another query: Can a pig be encouraged to fly?

 

The answer to both, of course: Yes, they can, but given their inherent properties, expecting either peace or pig to become airborne at this time constitutes wishful thinking in the extreme.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:54 | link | comments

Fear factor: Toronto Star headine— Gazans fear future under Islamist law.

 I don’t blame them, but isn’t that something they should have considered before they decided to empower Hamas by electing it as their government?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments (2)

Reaping what he sowed: After spending gazillions of oil dollars in a concerted effort to spread Wahabbist toxins far and wide, the Saudi monarch is now said to be concerned that “Middle East conflicts could go global.”

Really? I thought that was the whole idea.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:16 | link | comments

Knight errant: An editorial in the Globe and Mail rushes to defend Rushdie’s benighted knighting, and to chide the religious zanies who are freaking out about it:

…[The honour] was granted in recognition of Mr. Rushdie's contributions to literature. The Satanic Verses, the novel that incurred the wrath of Iran's supreme religious leader, is but one of 13 literary works dealing with some of the most important social, cultural and religious issues of our time, including conflicts between faiths.

British officials have tried to explain the importance of free speech in a democratic society and the need for tolerance of different faiths, beliefs and values. These will fall on deaf ears among Muslim radicals who will undoubtedly seek to widen the protests, much as they did when they took to the streets over the publication in Denmark of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

To his credit, Mr. Rushdie has never been bullied into apologizing for writings that Muslims or people of other religions may find offensive. Nor should Britain for making this brave defender of free expression Sir Salman Rushdie.

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble there, Globe editorialist, but during the last go-round of lunacy, Mr. Rushdie did, in fact, apologize. According to the Wikipedia entry on the Satanic troubles, which I assume is as accessible to you as it is to me,

Taking a cue from Iranian President Khamene'i (a former "favourite pupil" ^[2] and long-time lieutenant of Khomeini), who suggested that if Rushdie `apologizes and disowns the book, people may forgive him,` Rushdie issued "a carefully worded statement" two days later regretting

profoundly the distress the publication has occasioned to the sincere followers of Islam. Living as we do in a world of many faiths, this experience has served to remind us that we must all be conscious of the sensibilities of others.` ^[3]

This "was relayed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran via official channels before being release to the press."

You shouldn’t have any trouble locating this nugget of info. Look for the heading in large, bold letters that says “Rushdie’s apology”.

As usual, Mark Steyn hits the nail smack on the noggin. (Amusingly, both the Globe editorial and the Steyn post have the same heading—“Arise, Sir Salman.” Hmm, sounds familiar):

It's slightly depressing to read that Her Majesty's Government were entirely taken aback by the hostile Muslim reaction to their decision to knight Salman Rushdie. One assumed they had factored into their calculations at least a bit of pro forma Death-to-the-Great-Satan prancing in the livelier quarters of Pakistan - or even, with classic Brit cynicism, figured that enraging hundreds of millions of Muslims over an imperial bauble was a cheap way to look courageous and tough and determined after the recent humiliations inflicted on the Royal Navy. But no: the whole burning-effigies-of-the-Queen routine took them completely by surprise. It really is impossible to exaggerate the depths of self-delusion within which the multiculti bien pensants exist…

Exactly. To which I would only add that, the deed having been done, at least have the baytzim (Hebrew for cojones) to stand up to the slings and arrows of the outraged.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:03 | link | comments

Burqa babes rally against Rushdie: From AFP via Khaleej Times Online:

ISLAMABAD - Hundreds of women wearing all-covering burqas protested in front of Pakistan’s parliament on Wednesday against Britain’s award of a knighthood to novelist Salman Rushdie.

Around 300 female activists from Islamic parties waved flags and banners, an AFP reporter said. One placard read: ‘Tony Blair, withdraw knighthood title from enemy of Islam Salman Rushdie.’

The demonstrators blocked the road in front of the parliament building in the heart of Islamabad and listened to speeches delivered through loudhailers by female hardliners and bearded mullahs.

‘He is not a famous writer, why has he been given such a rare title? This is really a move against Muslims,’ said Samia Raheel Qazi, an MP and head of the women’s wing of the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami party.

In the southern city of Karachi some 300 Islamic party supporters again torched an effigy of Rushdie, whose book ‘The Satanic Verses’ earned him a death sentence from Iran’s clerical leadership in 1989.

They chanted ‘Death to Rushdie’ and ‘Down with the Queen, down with Britain’ and demanded that Pakistan sever diplomatic ties with London.

Two other smaller protests were held in the city at which they also burned dummies representing the Indian-born writer.

Earlier more than 150 traders gathered in the city’s busy commercial district where they burned a British flag in protest at the award to the ‘hated’ Rushdie.

‘Britain has tried to ignite the controversy of the cursed author Rushdie after more than a decade,’ said the leader of a local traders’ body, Akhtar Butt. ‘It’s a deliberate attempt to provoke Muslims.’

Another rally attended by more than 100 students from religious schools in Multan condemned the award and torched an effigy of Rushdie in protest.

‘By giving the title of ‘Sir’ to Rushdie, Britain has put the award into disrepute,’ said Hidayatullah Pasroori, a local leader of the moderate Islamic party Jamiat Ulema Pakistan...

A “moderate” Islamic party—how does that work, exactly? Is it only somewhat Salafist (doesn’t go “whole hog,” so to speak)?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:41 | link | comments (1)

Maggie sings Sir Elton: The British “apologist” (see post below) performs a plaintive ballad by another notable knight:

What do I have to do to make ‘em lay off?

What do I have to do to make ‘em chill?

How in the world can I explain our pay-off

To the man that they would like to kill?

 

What do I do to make ‘em like us?

How am I gonna win their minds and hearts?

What do I have to do so they won’t strike us

Since they can see our resolve's in fits and starts?

 

They’re mad, so mad,

They’re all racked by rage and anger,

And it’s getting worse, you must agree.

They’re mad, so mad,

Want us to revoke the honour.

Luckily for me,

“Sorry” comes easy for a dhimmi.

 

What do I do to mend the damage?

What have I got to do—just scrape and bow.

Show ‘em I know my role, and what’s expected

Whenever they’re apt to rant and row.

 

It’s sad, so sad,

That I lack a solid backbone--

Dhimmis have to be invertebrate.

It’s sad, so sad,

That I am so lame and flaccid.

And that’s why, you see,

Sorry’s so easy

For a dhimmi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:21 | link | comments

Sorry seems to be the easiest word: Looks like I spoke too soon about British anti-dhimmtude. Immediately after the interior minister said Britain would not apologize for Salman Rushdie’s knighthood, another cabinet member stepped forward...and offered an abject apology. From news.com.au:

FOREIGN Secretary Margaret Beckett said today that Britain was "sorry" if people were upset over writer Salman Rushdie's knighthood, but insisted it was awarded for his entire literary career.

"Obviously we are sorry if there are people who have taken very much to heart this honour, which is after all for a lifelong body of literary work," she said, after protests in the Muslim world over the award.

She stressed that Rushdie was just one of many Muslims who had been recognised by the British honours system - something she said "may not be realised by many of those who have been vocal in their opposition.

"People who are members of the Muslim faith are very much part of our whole, wider community... they receive honours in this country in just the same way as any other citizen."

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, asked to comment on the Rushdie row during a joint press conference with Beckett in London, said he thought it was "untimely."

"As for my government, in fact we share the views of many Muslims - Iraq is a Muslim country - but we believe that with all due respect to the knighthood, I think it was untimely. This is our view.

"I don't have any official position from my government on this issue, but I think it could be used by many quarters to exploit this issue outside its context," he said.

She was speaking shortly after another minister, Home Secretary John Reid, said Britain will not apologise for giving writer Salman Rushdie a knighthood.

As if the seethers could care less about Rushdie’s “lifetime body of work.” What consumes them—what has always consumed them—is that one “insulting” novel. And because of it they want to squeeze the very life out of his body.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:29 | link | comments

Words to live by: The title of a post by Richard Baer on the American Thinker site should become the rallying cry of all those who love Israel and despise the Peace in Our Time process—No More Land for War in Israel.

If I were entrepreneurially-minded, I’d have it printed on t-shirts and sell them on the internet.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:01 | link | comments

 A clash of values: Some refreshing—and these days all too uncharacteristic—anti-dhimmitude from a member of the U.K. government. From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - From Salman Rushdie to Monty Python, free speech even if offensive is worth protecting, Britain's interior minister said on Wednesday, defending a knighthood for Rushdie which has drawn protests from Muslims.

Angry protesters took to the streets in Pakistan and Malaysia on Wednesday to denounce Britain's award of a knighthood to Rushdie, whose novel "The Satanic Verses" outraged many Muslims worldwide and prompted death threats.

Britain's Queen Elizabeth announced the award for the Indian-born British writer last week for services to literature.

"We have a set of values that accords people honors when they contribute to literature even if we don't agree with their point of view," Home Secretary John Reid said, responding to a question at a lecture on counter-terrorism in New York.

"A lot of people were upset when John Cleese made 'Life of Brian,'" Reid said, referring to the movie by the British comedy troupe "Monty Python" which parodied the life of Jesus and offended many Christians.

Reid also noted that many Jews were upset by the work of Mel Gibson, whose 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ" drew charges of anti-Semitism.

"We have to be sensitive to the views of people of religion, people who have very strong views," he said.

"But I think that we all appreciate that in the long run our protection of the right to express your views in literature, argument, politics, is of over-riding political value to our societies," Reid said…

“We all” appreciate it? Speak for yourself, minister. In case you hadn’t noticed there are plenty of folks (far more than a miniscule fringe) who would beg (and, actually, not so much "beg" as "seethe") to differ.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:36 | link | comments

Sob story: A member of the executive committee of the Islamic Council of Victoria (Australia) writes that “Islamophobia” (a bogus condition which essentially refers to those who dare criticize the doctrines of the one true faith and the problematic actions of its adherents) is a “disease”. As you read this over-the-top yet unintentionally amusing woe-is-us piece (which I’m posting in its entirety so you can savour every mirthful moment) you might want to accompany it with one of those teeny-weeny violins. From the Herald Sun:

EACH morning, when I cover my head with a pastel-coloured silk scarf and step out into suburbia, I am transformed from being a middle-class, educated mother of four.

My colourful hijab makes me a symbol of oppression.

I have already heard the latest negative news story on the radio involving Muslims.

I resist the urge to retreat to the safety of my doona. I go on to face a day when awkward smiles at passers-by are so often met with looks of disdain or pity.

Things were looking up for Muslims. I noticed with some relief that we had managed to avoid the headlines for four consecutive weeks.

This dramatically changed in the aftermath of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's scathing attack on Islam's treatment of women two weeks ago.

Now more than ever, Islam has become inextricably linked with misogyny.

Ali's chilling account of the mutilation she was forced to endure as a child rang alarm bells across the nation, and rightly so.

This deplorable act warrants nothing less than unequivocal condemnation.

But the Islamophobic onslaught by talkback callers after her visit was disturbing.

You may have missed Ali noting that female genital mutilation predated Islam because this was almost never emphasised. This, however, does not make it any less true.

Evidence from mummies suggests that female circumcision originated in the Nile valley 4000 years ago.

To this day, it is practised in parts of Africa by some Muslims and Christians and animist tribes.

Nevertheless, Ali's broader message especially as popularly understood, remains clear.

Islam is responsible for perpetuating this vicious practice as evidenced by the Somali imams in her village.

They insisted on it, she said, to "keep girls pure". Ali is far less forthcoming about the Christian and animist tribes who do the same.

But it seems we are only comfortable thinking of female genital mutilation as an "Islamic practice."

The same might be said of so-called honour killings, which as fate would have it, also found their way into the headlines last week.

The Daily Telegraph in Britain revealed that 20-year-old Kurd Banaz Mahmod was murdered and buried in a back garden because her parents disapproved of her relationship with an Iranian man.

The report drew a link between honour killings and Islam. It said some Muslim communities in Britain practised sharia law and there was an increase in observance of sharia law partly because of "the rise of Islamic fundamentalism".

But, here again, we are talking about a pre-Islamic multi-faith phenomenon.

Honour killings have their roots in ancient Hammurabi and Assyrian law.

In the UK, officials state that Italian and Greek migrant families have committed similar atrocities.

Are we to believe that they too are adhering to Islamic sharia? I think not.

The existence of such a barbaric practice in the 21st century is utterly appalling.

But while those like Ali claim to champion the cause of Muslim women, in reality their actions are counterproductive.

All they achieve by lambasting the faith that has enriched the lives of millions is to alienate the very people they purport to serve.

I am not averse to robust discussion to attempt to find solutions to the problems plaguing some Muslim nations, but it is vital that any discourse involves discussion with mainstream Muslims.

Clearly a more nuanced approach is needed to deal with such issues rather than placing Islam and Muslims in the dock.

Because, Allah knows, there ain’t nearly enough “nuance” in the world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments

Jihad “scholars”: Ah, Graduation Day! A festive occasion full of caps, gowns, hopes, dreams, parental pride and, of course, suicide vests and virgins (both the Heavenly and the corporeal—though probably far fewer of the latter). From the Montreal Gazette:

Although the Canadian and U.S. governments publicly downplay the threat, intelligence officials today are working to authenticate a purported Taliban video showing hundreds of celebrating trainees "graduating" for suicide bombing missions in Canada, the United States and Europe.

If confirmed, security analysts will be asked to advise governments on what the video represents: A legitimate warning of attacks, which Islamic law requires of jihadists? A strategic deception to draw away Western security resources from genuine terror plots? Or propaganda to stoke public fear and boost the morale of supporters?

The Taliban recently merged its propaganda and field operations with the global Al-Qa'ida terror network and is moving its war outside the boundaries of Afghanistan and onto a global scale.

"As we have a counter-terrorism coalition, they have a jihadist coalition," said Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton University.

"That's worrisome because we know they're sharing tradecraft. We know they're sharing networking," and the video should "be taken very seriously."

Shot by an invited Pakistani journalist June 9 somewhere in the Afghan-Pakistan border region and broadcast by ABC News, the footage shows a large group of about 300 masked men - including some boys appearing as young as 12 - attending a "graduation ceremony" before apparently being dispatched by Al-Qa'ida and Afghanistan's Taliban movement on suicide missions to Canada, the United States, Britain and Germany.

It’s been said before—they blow up so fast!

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Late to the party: Drat! I missed Salman Rushdie’s birthday. Please join me in extending belated good wishes to one of Britain’s newest knights, who turned 60 on Tuesday:

Happy Birthday to you

You may as well be a Jew.

The cranks want to kill you,

And jihadis do, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments

Into the heart of darkness: Tony Blankley comments on a new book by a friend of his, a moderate Muslim university professor named Akbar Ahmed. From RealClear Politics:

…His new book, "Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization," is thus particularly heartbreaking for me. As a trained anthropologist, he took three of his students on a six-month journey around the Muslim world to investigate what Muslims are thinking.

His conclusion: Due to both misjudgments by the United States and regrettable developments in Muslim attitudes, "The poisons are spreading so rapidly that without immediate remedial action, no antidote may ever be found." And Dr. Ahmed has always been an optimist.

He divides Muslim attitudes into three categories named after Indian Muslim cities that have historically championed them: Ajmer, Aligarh and Deoband.

Ajmer represents peaceful Sufi mysticism, Aligarth represents the instinct to modernize without corrupting Islam, Deoband represents non-fatalistic, practical, action-oriented orthodox Islam. It traces to Ibn Taymiyya, a 14th-Century thinker who lived when Islam was reeling from the Mongol invasions. He rejected Islam's prior easy, open acceptance of non-Muslims.

In short, Dr. Ahmed is an Aligarth. As a young man he was one of new Pakistan's best and brightest, led by Pakistan's founding father and first president, Dr. Jinnah. They hoped to build a modern democracy, overcome tribalism and the more obscurantist aspects of Islam while still being "good Muslims." The Deobands are the Bin Ladens and all the other Muslims we fear today.

Even one or two years ago, I think Dr. Ahmed was reasonably hopeful that his views had a fighting chance around the Islamic world. So, my jaw dropped when I got to page 192 of his new book and he described his thoughts while in Pakistan last year on his investigative journey: "The progressive and active Aligarth model had become enfeebled and in danger of being overtaken by the Deoband model ... I felt like a warrior in the midst of the fray who knew the odds were against him but never quite realized that his side had already lost the war."

He likewise reported from Indonesia -- invariably characterized as practicing a more moderate form of Islam. There, too, his report was crushingly negative. Meeting with people from presidents to cab drivers, from elite professors to students from modest schools (Dr. Ahmed holds a respected place in the Muslim firmament around the globe), reports that 50 percent want Shariah law, support the Bali terrorist bombing, oppose women in politics, support stoning adulterers to death. Indonesia's secular legal system and tolerant pluralist society is being "infiltrated by Deoband thinking ... Dwindling moderates and growing extremists are a dangerous challenging development."…

That miniscule fringe seems to be growing every day. At what point are we going to finally acknowledge that the fringe is no longer so fringey, but has edged into (and infested) the mainstream?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:05 | link | comments

Ill-placed punctuation: Headline in dead tree version of the Toronto Star—"Bush, Olmert back moderate Abbas in move to isolate Hamas ‘extremists’." (The online heading is shorter.)

How the headline should have read: "Bush, Olmert back ‘moderate’ Abbas in move to isolate Hamas extremists."

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:42 | link | comments

A pointless quest: Maybe you can help Jonah Goldberg out. He’s in the market for a missing Nobel Peace Prize—and some semblence of logic in the West’s resolve to pressure Israel into making new concessions to the prize recipient’s successor. From JWR:

I have been scouring eBay for the last couple of days, hoping to snag a one-of-a-kind item. But, alas, it hasn't turned up yet. I'm looking for the late Yasser Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize. It was looted from Arafat's Gaza compound by the victorious forces of Hamas, a jihadist group backed by Iran and Syria that has routed the once-mighty forces of Fatah from power in Gaza. According to the Jerusalem Post, a Fatah spokesman added: "They stole all the widow's clothes and shoes."

The widow in question would be Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat's photo-op wife. Who can blame the looters for wanting to grab as much of her swag as possible? First of all, she wasn't using it. Suha hasn't been to Gaza for years. And her favorite shoe designer is Christian Louboutin, whose wares can fetch about $1,000 a pair, which is more than many Palestinians make in a year.

But it's that peace prize, won by Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for agreeing to the 1993 Oslo accords, that really captures the lunacy of it all. It's the perfect reminder for everyone, myself included, of the Arabs' refusal to yield to idealism, hope or good intentions — and the West's refusal to recognize reality.

"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing," former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser once said. But from the U.S. point of view, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Maybe they just don't want what we're selling?

For example, in 2005, Israel simply gave Gaza to the Palestinians. According to the international community's land-for-peace mantra, a peaceful society should have sprouted like a stalk from Jack's magic beans. Instead, the Palestinian people voted for a band of Islamic fanatics — even the European Union calls them terrorists, not that it matters much — dedicated to the destruction of Israel. But the diplomacy-uber-alles crowd has long been immune to contrary evidence. Remember when Arafat fanned the second intifada in response to an unprecedented peace offer? Members of the Nobel committee openly talked of revoking the peace prize — from Peres.

Now, President Bush, the leaders of the EU and the editors of the New York Times all say this is the moment for Israel to offer more concessions to Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas. So much for the fresh-from-Iraq cliche that it's pointless to choose sides in a civil war…

 

A true mark of intelligence is the ability to learn from past mistakes. By that measure, one must conclude that the West is terminally stupid.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:06 | link | comments

The Jews’ journey: A common feature of movies directed by Alfred Hitcock was a device he referred to, for reasons that have never been clear to me, as the “MacGuffin.” The MacGuffin was the object of obsession that the characters were focussed on at the outset of the story. This object kicked off the action and, at the same time, served as a diversion while, unbeknowst to those caught up in the MacGuffin frenzy (as well as the audience), the real story was occuring somewhere else.

David Finkelsteinon—a self-admitted neo-con (brave, brave man)—says that Israel is the Middle East’s MacGuffin. From the Times Online:.

…Have you ever wondered why everyone goes on and on about Israel? It is a tiny, tiny country, not much bigger than the Canary Islands. From the West Bank to the sea, the width of Israel is nine miles. You could fit the entire country into the state of Florida seven times. In his magnificent work The Case for Democracy the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky provides the neocon explanation of why a local dispute involving a nation the size of a pocket handkerchief is regarded as one of the most important conflicts in the world.

It’s all about the preservation of fear societies. Sharansky describes a fear society as one in which you can’t participate freely and without fear in the public debate. Having elections is one part of being a free society, but the civil institutions that protect free and fair discourse are even more important. And the Middle East is dominated by fear societies – back to back, cheek-by-jowl dictatorships.

To survive in power, the leaders of fear societies need an external enemy. A threat that justifies their policies of control, their emergency laws, their police infrastructure. Stalin needed the capitalists and the Trotskyites. North Korea demanded “ironclad unity under leader-party-nation” to keep the country safe from external predators. Hitler chose the Jews. And so did the leaders of Syria and Egypt, Iran and Libya. Not a particularly original choice, to be sure, but a reliable one, I’ll give them that.

So Israel is the MacGuffin of the Middle East. As all the characters rush around trying to find the suitcase with the Zionist plot hidden in it, the real story goes on. The terrible clash between the tragic failure of Arab nationalism and the dangerous rise of Islamic fundamentalism, that’s the real story.

And the neocon case is that there will be no peace in the Middle East until this is understood. Only when there is democracy and civil freedom, the ability to join one faction without being killed by another, for instance, is there even the slightest chance of an end to bloodshed.

Look at Gaza. We are told that the fighting between Fatah and Hamas is inevitable given their desperation. It’s all the result of years of Israeli oppression. But why, then, is a very similar fight going on in Egypt between the Arab nationalist government and the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood? And why are Hezbollah and the Syrians killing Lebanese ministers? This fighting isn’t about Israel. It’s a struggle to the death between two authoritarian forces…

From Europe’s “scapegoat” to the Middle East’s “MacGuffin”: not exactly a quantum leap. (The expression "out of the frying pan, into the fire" springs to mind.)

It all comes back, I think, to something I’ve been saying for a while, my conclusion after years of obsessive/compulsive reading about antisemitism: The world has never come to terms with the fact of the Jews—and likely never will.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:48 | link | comments (2)

Going “home”: After decades of frustration, the Palestinians have finally come up with a way to put their “right of return” into effect. From the Ceeb:

The Israeli army will allow an unspecified number of Palestinians fleeing the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip to enter Israel, the Defence Ministry said Wednesday.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who took over the position of Labour leader on Tuesday, instructed officials to let in "humanitarian cases," in apparent reference to people in need of medical treatment. 

An estimated 200 Palestinians have been stranded for days in a 270-metre tunnel between two high walls 10 metres apart at the Erez crossing from Gaza into Israel. Their only way out hinges on gaining permission to go through Israeli territory for sanctuary in the West Bank.

Five Palestinians who were wounded in last week's fighting or in a subsequent attack on the tunnel by Hamas-allied fighters have already been admitted into Israel for medical treatment.

Israel has been reluctant to admit the Gazans, fearing that their admittance could destabilize the quieter West Bank and lead to a larger flood of refugees at the border crossing...

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:12 | link | comments (2)

Pop culture vultures: Way back when, Bill Clinton’s campaign theme song was Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop (Thinkin’ About Tomorrow)”. That was in a bygone era when we had hardly an inkling of what tomorrow would bring, and Yasser Arafat was soon to become the most oft-invited sleepover guest at the White House.

My, how things have changed. Today, the distaff Clinton is running for president, and her many admirers have chosen the “perfect” theme song for her campaign: Celine Dion’s “You And I.”

 

Um, isn’t Celine Dion Canadian?

 

The Senator announced this tone-deaf selection in a unique manner: with a parody of The Sopranos on her website.

 

Um, isn’t that a show about Mafia hoodlums?

 

Oh, well. At least the effort shows that Hill has a grasp, however tentative, on American pop culture. Can’t you just see her and Bill sitting at home, curlers in her hair, fuzzy bunny slippers on her feet, Bill tucking into a giant microwave bag of Orville Redenbacker’s, both of them singing with unabashed delight at the top of their voices to the CD of Celine’s greatest hits?

 

You can’t?

 

Me neither.

 

Here’s part of Editor & Publisher's report on the song selection:

 

…Clinton had thrown the voting open to fans of her race for president, who could make a pick online from a short list, featuring artists from Shania Twain to The Temptations. The video, posted on her site today, shows her waiting in a diner, looking at a jukebox, as a certain Journey song plays faintly in the background. A mystery man enters and approaches the table (not wearing Members Only) -- no, it's not Dick Morris. Turns out to be her husband.

Bill sits down and she asks him where's Chelsea. He replies that she is parking the car, as we see her having trouble doing it. Hillary says she has ordered for the table, as carrot sticks. Bill wonders why she didn't order onion rings.

Hillary continues to look at the jukebox as Bill says he wants the Smash Mouth song to win the contest. A menacing figure gets off a stool and walks past them to the bathroom -- it's "Johnny Sack" from 'The Sopranos."

As Hillary is about to play the winning number, the screen, of course, goes blank....and you have to click on another button to discover that the winner is...Celine Dion's "You and I."…

 

Bill wanted Smash Mouth to win? I’m with him, because if Hillary is elected we might as well be walking on the sun.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:36 | link | comments

To jihad and back: Theodore Dalrymple reviews a memoir by Ed Husain, a former jihadist who decided to give it up and turn respectable. Dalrymple applauds the author, a young Brit of Bangladeshi descent, for having the fortitude and foresight to make such a move, but isn’t too sure Husain is entirely wised up. Dalrymple is also concerned about what this story says about the seductive and enduring appeal of jihad. From City Journal:

…The author retains his Islamic faith, however; he believes that it is compatible with democracy and that its message is essentially one of peace. I am glad that he believes so, for it means that there is one fanatic less. However, his view is largely wishful thinking, however decent and honorable the wish may be, and can be held only by ignoring the contrary evidence. Islam expanded by force, and with a great deal of slaughter; much in the Koran enjoins and extols violence; Islam, whether Sunni or Shia, has still not learned how to coexist as an equal with other religions when it has the upper hand, for reasons having to do with doctrine itself; apostasy is still not permitted.

The author lets us see from the inside what combination of circumstances can produce a fanatic in a society such as Britain’s. If even as decent a person as he can be lured into fanaticism, there is much to worry about. Personal angst and sociological structure are not sufficient to explain his trajectory: an ideological ingredient was necessary. And that ideological ingredient was ready to hand: plausibly, if not indubitably, inevitably, or invariantly, derived from Islam…

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:06 | link | comments

Giving a hearty thumbs up to martyrdom: The religious affairs minister of Pakistan, a nation in the throes of another bout of anti-Rushdie frenzy, says the author’s knighthood means suicide bombings in old blighty are now perfectly justified.

The Brits, understandably, are not amused by the suggestion, but have decided to keep mum for the moment. From Channel 4 News:

 

The government has expressed "deep concern" over comments made about Sir Salman Rushdie by Pakistan's religious affairs minister.

The minister said Britain's decision to award the author a knighthood justified suicide bombings.

The high commissioner in Islamabad, Robert Brinkley, conveyed the message when he was summoned to meet government representatives.

Pressure had been growing for the UK to speak out over the incendiary comments by Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq.

Amid street protests in Pakistan, he sparked uproar in the national parliament by reportedly saying: "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British Government apologises and withdraws the 'Sir' title."

Downing Street refused to be drawn on the issue, and the Foreign Office merely said it was looking into the remarks. Mr ul-Haq has since insisted he was not trying to condone or incite terrorism…

Yeah, I’m sure condoning or inciting terrorism was the furthest thing from his mind.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:54 | link | comments (1)

Public Broadcasting bias: Public broadcasters in three countries—Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.—are notorious for their left-leaning bias. And because they see everything through a lefty-lib lens (and thus may as well be wearing blinkers), the Ceeb, PBS and the Beeb do their audiences a great disservice.

DiscovertheNetworks has some details about the recent Beeb-commissioned report exposing bias on the network, and how this bias is definitely a transoceanic affair:

 

A new 80-page report, commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corporation and written by independent program-maker John Bridcut, concludes that BBC is markedly out of touch with much of its viewing public; that it regularly self-censors news stories that the Corporation finds inconsistent with its leftist views; and that it has "come late" to several important stories in recent years, including Euroscepticism and immigration, which BBC deems "off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone."

BBC's own controller of editorial policy acknowledges that many people consider his Corporation guilty of a "bias of omission."  Among the more notable charges are claims of political correctness over Muslim terrorist suspects who were arrested last summer. As ThisIsLondon.co reports, “One member of the public surveyed for the report claimed: ‘I think the BBC is too politically correct. The BBC were saying ‘21 men have been arrested’ and I thought ‘what’s happening?’ So I flicked over to Sky and it says ‘21 Asian men have been arrested.’”

In 1904 the United Kingdom's Wireless Telegraphy Act put the Royal Post Office in control of issuing broadcast licenses. In 1919, after complaints that new broadcasters were interfering with military communications, the Post Office stopped issuing these licenses, and by 1922 new stations were permitted to begin broadcasting only as part of a monopoly called the British Broadcasting Company. In 1927 a royal charter converted this company into the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC.

Today this nominally autonomous corporation is run by a Board of Governors whose members are appointed to four-year (formerly five-year) terms by the elected government in Parliament. The BBC is managed by a Director General appointed by the Governors.

BBC airs no advertising. Its broadcasts are funded by a "licence fee" levied on every household that owns a television set. The poor and other favored groups are exempted from this tax, and those with black-and-white TVs pay less than those with color. This annual tax of approximately $195 per color-television household gives BBC its own earmarked revenue of approximately $5.2 billion each year, which it uses to produce and broadcast programs and to maintain the largest news-gathering operation in the world.

BBC Radio broadcasts what Americans would call five distinct networks or channels -- news and sports (BBC Radio 5); what used to be called its Home Service (Radio 4); cultural programming (Radio 3); easy listening jazz and folk music (Radio 2); and contemporary music (Radio 1).

BBC Television launched the world's first regular television service in 1936 from the Alexandra Palace in London. It has aired ever since, except during World War II when it temporarily went dark lest its signal be detected by German bombers over London. That channel, now known as BBC One, broadcasts mostly dramas, comedies, game shows and soap operas.  BBC Two was launched in 1964 and today it features more eclectic, cultural and news-oriented programs than BBC One.

BBC has long exported its programs and documentaries, many of which air in the United States on PBS. It also broadcasts a few imported foreign programs. BBC Radio shows and news stories are broadcast in the U.S. by the stations of Pacifica Radio and National Public Radio.

BBC airs its own noncommercial UK news channel (BBC News 24) to compete with Cable News Network (CNN) and the Rupert Murdoch sister operation to Fox, Sky News in Europe. BBC also produces BBC World, a commercial news network broadcast worldwide outside the UK, that shares reporters and stories with BBC News 24. Many of its stories also air on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). A half-hour version of BBC World News is available to PBS stations via WLIW in New York and it can presently be viewed by 80 to 90 percent of U.S. residents…

 

The Ceeb is as bad as the Beeb, and, on some days, even worse than it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:21 | link | comments (1)

The ‘hardliners’ are revolting: The Queen’s knighting of the author of The Satanic Verses has occasioned a whole new round of battiness in the expected quarters. Along with calling for the Crown to revoke Rushdie’s honour, “protesters” in Pakistan have taken to burning the sweet little old lady in effigy—so you know they’re really, really p.o.’d.

And the seething and burning aren’t the half of it. From AFP via canada.com:

…Around 150 hardline protesters in the eastern city of Lahore torched an effigy of the British queen and called for Rushdie to be handed over to an Islamic court, witnesses said.

"We want Rushdie to be handed over to Muslim country where he should be tried under Sharia law," protest leader Shahid Gilani told the crowd. "The punishment for a blasphemer is death."

Gilani is head of Shabab-e-Milli, the youth wing of Pakistan's radical Jamaat-e-Islami party. The group hit headlines in 2006 when they called for the assassination of a Danish cartoonist behind drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.

He said activists in other cities planned later to "garland (late Nazi dictator Adolf) Hitler's effigies to express our hatred toward those who garland blasphemers."

"We have also decided that we will from now on call every dog 'Sir'," he said.

Conservatives in Iran, which borders Pakistan, on Tuesday attacked the British monarch, with a top MP saying the British monarch lived in a dreamworld and a newspaper labelling her an "old crone."…

 

They’re going to “garland" effigies of Hitler and address canines as ‘Sir’? Paging Dr. Sarraj: Some of your co-religionists are off their meds and need a prescription for a good anti-psychotic.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:49 | link | comments (1)

Reality check: As an antidote to Dr. Eyad Sarraj’s misdiagnosis of Palestinian problems in the Globe and Mail (see first post of the day), here’s some much needed clarity by Fouad Ajami in the New York Times:

SO the masked men of Fatah have the run of the West Bank while the masked men of Hamas have their dominion in Gaza. Some see this as a tolerable situation, maybe even an improvement, envisioning a secularist Fatah-run state living peacefully alongside Israel and a small, radical Gaza hemmed in by Israeli troops. It’s always tempting to look for salvation in disaster, but in this case it’s sheer fantasy. Skip to next paragraph

The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other national movement has had the indulgence granted the Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and the senseless violence, in the inability of a people to come to terms with their condition and their needs.

The life of a Palestinian is one of squalor and misery, yet his leaders play the international game as though they were powers. An accommodation with Israel is imperative — if only out of economic self-interest and political necessity — but the Palestinians, in a democratic experiment some 18 months ago, tipped power to a Hamas movement whose very charter is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state and the imposition of Islamist rule.

The political maxim that people get the leaders they deserve must be reckoned too cruel to apply to the Palestinians. Before Hamas, for four decades, the vainglorious Yasir Arafat refused to tell his people the basic truths of their political life. Amid the debacles, he remained eerily joyous; he circled the globe, offering his people the false sense that they could be spared the consequences of terrible decisions.

In a rare alignment of the universe, there came Mr. Arafat’s way in the late 1990s an American president, Bill Clinton, eager to redeem Palestinian claims and an Israeli soldier-statesman, Ehud Barak, who would offer the Palestinians all that Israeli political traffic could bear and then some.

But it was too much to ask of Mr. Arafat to return to his people with a decent and generous compromise, to bid farewell to the legend that the Palestinians could have it all “from the river to the sea.” It was safer for him to stay with the political myths of his people than to settle down for the more difficult work of statehood and political rescue…

No surprise there. Arafat got lots mileage out of that myth, and his successor is still coasting on its and his coat tails, even if recent events have once again revealed it to be nothing more than a pathetic sham.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:32 | link | comments

An uncomplicated meanness: The Ceeb bangs a gong for a young man who might be described as the Ceeb’s perfect viewer/listener. He’s half-native, Leftist as all get out, and has just written a novel which seeks to shed light on those “complicated” individuals who embrace a violent way of life:

The smart, violent 15-year-old anti-hero of Sherman Alexie’s gripping new book, Flight, is a time bomb. His Irish mom is long dead and his native dad is AWOL — he “vanished like a cruel magician about two minutes after I was born.” The teenager has been bounced from one abusive foster home to the next, carrying all his possessions in one small backpack. He’s friendless and skinny and “looks like a bag of zits tied to a broomstick.” He doesn’t even have the dignity of a name. “Call me Zits,” is how this parable begins, “my real name isn’t important.”

That opening line may be a nod to Moby-Dick, but the real inspiration for Flight is Kurt Vonnegut’s classic novel Slaughterhouse-Five, one of the works in Alexie’s 5,000-plus book collection that he regularly re-reads. Like Billy Pilgrim, Zits becomes “unstuck in time.” Egged on by a mysterious friend he met in juvenile jail, Zits surrenders to his rage and hurt, entering a crowded Seattle bank armed with a paint gun and a loaded pistol. Just as he begins firing, his spirit leaves his body and shuttles through a series of other troubled people, among them a corrupt FBI agent during the 1970s Red Power Movement, a native child witnessing the battle at Little Big Horn and a flight instructor who unwittingly trained, and befriended, a terrorist.

“I don’t think you can call this a coming-of-age story,” Alexie says over iced coffee in a hotel restaurant during a tour stop in Toronto. “More like coming-of-blood.” Set in the present day, Flight is Alexie’s attempt, in a post-9/11 world, to understand what drives people to acts of both goodness and violence. “Whether you’re left or right, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, everyone’s ideas about the [Sept. 11 attackers] are really big. They were freedom fighters, or sociopaths.” But, Alexie says, the men themselves were complicated individuals. Set against massive acts of violence like 9/11, it’s the small stories of betrayal and decency, of making the right choice or the wrong one, that interest Alexie…

It’s really not that complicated, Alexie. What drives people to become violent jihadists in a post-9/11 world is the same thing that motivated Mo Atta and co. to become violent jihadists and unleash the 9/11 attacks: a compelling ideology of religious supremacism that has been revived for modern times.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:12 | link | comments (1)

Funny business: The Ceeb website has a prominent promo for the corporation’s acclaimed sitcom, Little Mosque on the Prairie.

On tonight's episode, which is bound to be a high water mark in multicultist hilarity, "A battle of the sexes erupts when Baber decides to put up a barrier between the men and the women in the new mosque."

Don't miss it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:50 | link | comments (1)

Physician, heal thyself: Eyad Sarraj, a Palestinian activist, once tried to explain to a BBC interviewer that, given Israeli infamy, it’s not surprising that Palestinians resorted to suicide bombing. The surprise, said Sarraj, is that they haven’t used suicide bombings even more often.

You won’t read about Sarraj’s admiration for martyrdom in today’s Globe and Mail; Sarraj has donned a more respectable guise. He is Dr. Eyad Sarraj, director of something called the Gaza Community Mental Health Program (a service that is no doubt well patronized, given the great need for it in the area). And Dr. Sarraj, the Globe wants you to know, is an admirable chap who “received the 1997 Physicians for Human Rights Award and the 1998 Martin Ennals Award for human-rights defenders.”

 

Most impressive, even if the “human rights” Dr. Sarraj deigns to defend are the rights of Palestinian terrorists to eviscerate Jewish civilians.

 

But let’s set aside such unpleasantness for the moment, and devote a few minutes to reading Dr. Sarraj’s commentary. In the opinion of the good doctor, responsibility for that other unpleasantness—the barbaric tableau in Gaza wherein Palestinians could be seen hurling each other off rooftops and animalistically butchering corpses (my description; not his)—can be laid at the feet of one man.

 

Might that be Ismail Haniyeh, head honcho of jihadist terror outfit Hamas?

 

Is it perhaps Mahmoud Abbas, his “moderate, secular” Fatah rival?

 

‘Tis to laugh. The man who Dr. Sarraj says is responsible for the Gaza chaos is—wait for it—Ariel Sharon.

 

Here’s an excerpt of Dr. Sarraj’s fulmination:

Two years ago, the Egyptian security envoy in Gaza told me that if there were a military confrontation, Hamas could easily defeat the predominantly Fatah security forces and take over all of Gaza in three days. "I've seen both sides," he said, "and it is clear that Hamas scores much higher in five areas: leadership, discipline, training, arms and, most important, the motivation." He said the security forces would be hobbled by being stationed in buildings, while Hamas fighters would be able to hit and run. To the shock of the terrified population of Gaza, that's exactly what happened last week. An Israeli military analyst said the Palestinian Authority forces were like a paper tiger.

I went on a tour Sunday morning. Gaza was wearily quiet and people were bewildered. An old man said to me, "Okay, they destroyed the corrupt. We welcome that. Can they feed us now?" I saw what was left of the looted home of Mohammed Dahlan, commander of Gaza's preventive security service, and of the beach chalets that were used for training his new recruits.

My family and I had spent several traumatic days and sleepless nights, trying to find a safe corner in the house as the shooting and shelling raged around us. My baby son was with his grandparents when the fighting erupted and we could not bring him home or even see him until it subsided. The most alarming thing was the inhuman treatment of those who were captured: One man was tied and thrown from the 10th floor of a building; some injured fighters were killed in their hospital beds; and stories of insane torture were numerous and horrific.

It's not easy to explain what has happened here and why. On the surface, it looks like a power struggle that grew out of the U.S.-led blockade of the Hamas government and even to efforts at forging a Hamas-Palestine Liberation Organization unity government...

Make no mistake, though. Surfaces are deceiving, and when you delve a little deeper, you’ll find the figure of a corpulent and now comatose Israeli.

 

Here’s the letter I sent the Globe, disagreeing with Dr. Sarraj’s bizarre reasoning (if you can call it that):

 

I have become accustomed to the Palestinian impulse to assign all blame for their problems on everyone but themselves, but Eyad Sarraj’s assertion that the recent civil strife in Gaza is Ariel Sharon’s fault is more than a little ridiculous. It seems to have escaped Dr. Sarraj’s attention that the former Israeli Prime Minister has been lying sidelined and incapacitated in the hospital for quite some time.

 

In any event, Mr. Sharon was the one who pushed for the Gaza disengagement, a move that was intended to give Palestinians the chance to do what they say they have always wanted to do: build their own nation. That they squandered this opportunity, first by electing Hamas, then by allowing their internecine squabbles to devolve into a brutal civil war, is hardly Ariel Sharon’s fault.

 

It’s unfortunate that Dr. Sarraj and his family were forced to spend “several traumatic days and sleepless nights” during the recent crisis. Perhaps he could commiserate with the residents of Sderot, the Israeli border town. They have been forced to endure months of sleeplessness due to incoming rocket fire from Gaza.

 

But I guess that’s probably Ariel Sharon’s fault, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:42 | link | comments

Strange site-fellows: On a Mark Steyn post on The Corner which comments acerbically on a female Episcopal priest who considers herself to be both Christian and Muslim, I found the following unlikely google ads in the same box:

• How to Convert to Islam How to convert and become a Muslim with Live Help by chat www.IslamReligion.com

 

• Islamic Bookstore Educational Centre for all ages A relaxing & enlightening place www.alexandriaec.com

 

• Islamic Manuscripts Korans, History, Prayers, Poetry & Miniatures For Sale Online www.griffon.net

 

• Modest Women's Clothing Loose-fitting, modest clothing for the contemporary woman www.islamicoutfitters.com

 

I think I better write to Mark and let him know.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:10 | link | comments

All dressed up with no place to go: The International Herald Tribune, a bastion of MSM cluelessness, reports that there’s a looming humanitarian crisis in Gaza—another one—because some “neatly dressed Islamic militants” have just closed Gaza’s crucial border crossing with Egypt.

My questions: Does the fact that these “Islamic militants” were “neatly dressed” have any bearing at all on this story? Would it have made a difference if they’d been dressed like slobs, wearing robes stained from that leaky shwarma they had for lunch?

 

Does the IHT mean to imply that these terrorists are somehow nicer and less barbaric because they took the time to put on clean clothes?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:43 | link | comments

A "moderate" proposal: What’s the best way for an immoderate “moderate” whose gang of “moderate, secular" thugs has just been bested by a gang of religious thugs to consolidate his power base? Why, by calling for the resumption of Peace in Our Time talks, of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

No money for Jew-haters: There’s another reason why we shouldn’t restart the flow of jizya to Fatah. As Hugh Fitzgerald points out, it is irredeemably corrupt, not to mention in the grip of an intractable hatred.  From Dhimmi Watch:

…The corruption is partly visible, and partly hidden. When Arafat died, the "Palestinian authority" somehow discovered it was missing billions and billions of dollars -- perhaps as much as $5 billion. It was money from Infidel taxpayers, in North America and Western Europe. Where did it all go? Hundreds of millions must have gone to Suha Arafat, living lavishly in Paris, attending fashion shows and suchlike, while we, the taxpayers of Europe and America who made this possible, are not visiting Paris (it's too expensive), not to mention Dior or Chanel, any time soon. Why was this money not retrieved? Why was it not sufficient cause to cut off all further funds?

We know why. The "Palestinian Authority" is nothing but a gang, and this gang, called Fatah for shorthand, now has another, rival gang, a gang less corrupt, but even more fanatically religious. The gang of Fatah can be called the Slow Jihadists. They want to eliminate Israel, but they want to eliminate it a little more slowly, in a decade or two or three, by pushing it back into thoroughly indefensible borders, by making its protection even more of a nightmare than it is today (for god's sake just look at a map). They want to push it back to the armistice lines of 1949 -- never the "borders," as the BBC and NPR like to call them, for the Arabs never agreed to recognize those armistice lines as "borders," even though the Israelis kept offering to do so for nearly two decades, until the Six-Day War. Young law students learn that in the formation of contracts, an offer once made and then rejected disappears, and cannot be revived on the mere decision of the offeree to change -- for whatever reason -- his mind. And certainly the Arabs not only rejected the offer for turning those 1949 armistice lines into permanent borders through peace treaties. They have also made war against Israel for more than fifty years. They have conducted Jihad sometimes by open warfare (qital) or through terrorism, but always by economic and diplomatic pressure designed to weaken and isolate Israel. And it is ludicrous for them to pretend that nearly sixty years have not made a difference, and that they can go right back to pressing for Israel to return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, when there is nothing to require this, and indeed, it is Israel that should be stressing its legal, moral and historic claims to the territory it now possesses, which is roughly Western Palestine, consisting of 22% of the territory that was originally assigned to Great Britain as the Mandatory Authority for Palestine. The other 78%, including all of Palestine east of the Jordan, was assigned by the British unilaterally (and the members of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations were horrified at what the British had done) to a "country" quickly concocted for Abdullah, of the Hashemite sons, and called "The Emirate of Transjordan" (later promoted to "the Arab Kingdom of Jordan").

Then the money from Infidel lands started to come in, mostly through UNRWWA. Ever since the "Palestinian Authority" took control of Gaza (save for the Jewish villages that were abandoned intact, their farms and especially those greenhouses turned over intact, a turn-key operation that the local Arabs had only to use productively -- and instead they dismantled and destroyed the whole thing, overnight) and of the Arabs ("Palestinians) of the West Bank, the money has poured into that "Authority." Or rather, it has poured into the coffers of Arafat, and Abbas, and Dahlan, and the tens of thousands of Fatah-men who march around in black balaklavas, killing whatever Jewish family they manage to catch alone in an outing, or hitchhiking, or shopping in an Arab town (in order to help the "Arabs" that naive Jewish visitor must have thought) or visiting an Arab friend or colleague. These unwary visitors are unaware of the depth of the hatred and the surpassing murderousness, by dint of non-stop cradle-to-grave inculcated Jew-hatred, of so many who are now free of all constraints under the "Palestinian Authority."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

Fliers and liars: I have mixed feelings about Canada’s no-fly list, which goes into effect today. On the one hand, it’s a crude mechanism that’s unlikely to prevent the bad guys from climbing on board. On the other hand, a no-fly list did once raise a red flag about U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy.

A CTV News report mentions some of the criteria for getting onto the list. They include:

• A person who is or has been involved in a terrorist group;
• A person who has been convicted of life-threatening crimes against aviation; or
• A person who has been convicted of one or more serious offences who may attack an air carrier.

Sounds good to me. Can’t say as I want to share cabin space with anyone who falls into those categories. However, the list isn’t sitting too well with human rights types. They are concerned, naturally, about the possibility that “innocents” may be inconvenienced and that another Maher Arar-like incident could occur:

The information will be shared with foreign agencies and governments, which invades people's privacy, [security consultant] Juneau-Katsuya said.

"In a way we are sentencing individuals in a way he or she may not be aware of. Their life will be affected and there are serious consequences for citizens and residents in this country."

Juneau-Katsuya questions the effectiveness of the no-fly list and sees problems arising in court.

"I think it'll be very easy for any lawyers to probably dismantle this in court because basically what we're facing is an administrative sentence that has been given by bureaucrats on people we suspect might be sort of problematic or we suspect may cause some trouble," he says. "That goes against our (justice) system."

Canada's list is supposed to be limited in terms of names, perhaps no more than 1,000. But some civil liberties groups are worried it might eventually be merged with the U.S. list.

Some human rights groups say the measure could lead to racial or religious profiling, while [the Canadian Foundation for Race Relations’s Ayman al-] Yassini believes the list could create another Maher Arar-like case.

Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was shipped to Syria by U.S. authorities in 2002 after he was taken into custody at a New York airport. Syrian authorities tortured him during his 10 months in captivity, and he made a false confession to terrorist involvement.

An inquiry fully exonerated Arar, but the U.S. continues to keep Arar on a no-fly list.

Yeah, what on Earth could they be thinking down there?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

A letter that will never see the light of day in the Globe and Mail: Re Canada to restore relations with new, Hamas-free government:

I must take my hat off to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Although he fronts a party, Fatah, which serves as the umbrella for a number of terrorist outfits that are working toward Israel’s destruction, he has managed to position himself and his party as the “moderate” alternative to religious extremists, Hamas. This even though the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah affiliate, has pulled off numerous suicide martyrdom operations inside Israel and just last week attacked an Israeli military post near Gaza using a jeep disguised as a television vehicle; and even though last year members of “secular” and moderate Fatah expressed outrage over the publication of controversial Danish cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed by trashing EU offices in Gaza.

 

It seems moderation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And the West is determined to behold Abbas as a moderate, even if he’s provided precious little evidence that that’s what he actually is.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments (1)

Moderate, shmoderate: Western powers are stumbling all over each other, trying to be first in line to send oodles of shekels to “moderate” Moo Abbas and his “moderate” Fatah party. But, as Jacob Laskin in FrontPage Magazine reminds us, the “moderation” is largely a figment of the West’s wistful and wishful imagination:

"Bye, bye, Gaza.” So declared terrified Palestinians this weekend, as they fled from what, after six days of street fighting between rival Hamas and Fatah cadres, has effectively become the realm of the Islamic terrorist organization.

 

They have the right idea. Although Hamas has offered amnesty to its political opponents, Gazans are unwilling to credit the offer. That’s not especially surprising. By now, few require edification about what Hamas means when it proclaims that the “era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived.” It means, for instance, that prisoners can expect the treatment afforded 28-year-old Muhammad Swairki, a cook for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's presidential guard. After seizing Swairiki last week, Hamas fighters bound his hands and legs, then “freed” him in the following manner: by hurling him to his death from a 15-story apartment complex in Gaza City, many Palestinians consider the era of Islamic justice and rule far more desirable in principle -- after all, they did vote to elect Hamas -- than in practice.. Cases like these contribute to the minimum of 120 people who have been killed in the recent carnage unleashed by Hamas. Measured by the unebbing flood of refugees from Gaza, many Palestinians consider the era of Islamic justice and rule far more desirable in principle--after all, they did vote to elect Hamas--than in practice. 

 

Abbas’s Fatah seems bent on capitalizing on that hard fact. While Hamas was crushing the remaining pockets of resistance in Gaza this weekend, Fatah forces moved to assert control over the West Bank. In his boldest move, Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian Cabinet and decreed an “emergency government,” with himself in command. The ploy is clear enough: To send the message that Fatah, unlike its bloody-minded counterpart in Gaza, is a force for moderation and compromise; that it is the true representative of the Palestinian people; and that the international community’s assorted diplomats should address themselves -- and their aid packages -- to its offices.

 

Will it work? Fatah cannot be disappointed with the early evidence. Hardly had Abbas ousted Hamas from the Palestinian Authority this weekend than the American consul general in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles, turned up at Abbas's headquarters in Ramallah to announce that the United States would suspend its economic embargo , a response to the electio of Hamas in 2006, just as soon as the new emergency government is appointed. The European Union has similarly pledged to work with a Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Even Israel is on board. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert kicked off his trip to the U.S. on Sunday by hailing the emergence of a new Palestinian government as a victory for peace. In Fatah, Olmert said, he saw “an opportunity that has not existed for a long time.”  

 

What Olmert could have possibly had in mind is unclear. Proof of Fatah’s moderate credentials, which supposedly make it a credible partner for negotiations, is nowhere to be found. In his enthusiasm for Fatah, for instance, Olmert declined to mention that it remains an umbrella organization for terrorist factions committed to and, indeed, actively seeking Israel's destruction...

 

A minor technicality to those lining up to help him out. Their rationale: since he isn’t a roiling religious nutter, he must be “moderate.” You know, like that “moderate” Soviet secularist, Joe Stalin, and that “moderate” Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:53 | link | comments

Another (angry) country heard from: Not to be outdone by the irate Iranians, the seething Sunnis over in Pakistan aren't too thrilled about Rushdie's knighthood either.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:34 | link | comments

A timely reminder: An AP report yesterday about Iranian ire over Salman Rushdie’s knighthood included an interesting nugget of information:

The Iranian government declared in 1998 that it would not support but could not rescind the fatwa. Rushdie says he receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on Feb. 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to end his life.

It can’t rescind the fatwa because the only person who can lift it is the person who issued it, and he—the Ayatollah Khockamamie—is long since dead.

 

The item inspired me to revise a Rodgers and Hart standard. I like to imagine Sir Salman singing it to himself as he opens his annual “love letter” from the cranky Shias:

 

My fatwa Valentine,

Cracked fatwa Valentine,

You come the same time every year.

Your content’s risible,

Your theme despisable.

It seems that you don’t want me here.

Is your language overwrought?

Is your thinking way too hot?

Does it put me on the spot

And aim to kill me?

It came from Khomeini.

He was the one, you see,

Who put the price on my head

And it's still there ‘cause he’s dead.

 

Is your language overwrought?

Is your thinking way too hot?

Does it put me on the spot

And aim to kill me?

But don't touch a single hair.

There aren't too many there.

Go, crazy Valentine, go.

I'm tired of your rig'marole.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:19 | link | comments

A poem for the U.K. boycotters:

Hear the “Einsteins” of Brit academe

Tout the Arabs’ anti-Zionist dream.

“We love “Jews”—can’t you tell?

We just loathe Is-ra-el.”

An assertion so false it’s obscene.

 

Yes, I know the last word isn’t a perfect rhyme, but it is the perfect word.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:04 | link | comments

TLF discovers judenhass: Influential New York Times pundit, Thomas L. Friedman, (a man who writes a serviceable but banal prose—no A.J. Liebling, he) weighs in on British academe’s boycott of Israel. Tom, ever quick on the uptake, reflects that the obvious “bias” is a flagrant case of anti-Semitism.

Wow. Such blinding insight. Give that man a prize! 

 

The article is available on the NYT site if you’re willing to fork over extra shekels for the privilege of reading the paper’s most popular opiners, including the lovely and talentless Maureen Dowd, but I managed to snag it off another blogger’s site:

 

Two weeks ago I took part in commencement for this year’s doctoral candidates at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The ceremony was held in the amphitheater on Mount Scopus, which faces out onto the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab. The setting sun framed the graduate students in a reddish-orange glow against a spectacular biblical backdrop.

Before I describe the ceremony, though, I have to note that it coincided with the news that Britain’s University and College Union had called on its members to consider a boycott of Israeli universities, accusing them of being complicit in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Anyway, as the Hebrew U. doctoral candidates each had their names called out and rose to receive their diplomas from the university’s leadership, I followed along in the program. The Israeli names rolled by: “Moshe Nahmany, Irit Nowik, Yuval Ofir. But then every so often I heard an Arab name, like Nuha Hijazi or Rifat Azam or Taleb Mokari.

Since the program listed everyone’s degrees and advisers, I looked them up. Rifat got his doctorate in law. His thesis was about “International Taxation of Electronic Commerce.” His adviser was “Prof. D. Gliksberg.” Nuha got her doctorate in biochemistry. Her adviser was “Prof. R. Gabizon.” Taleb had an asterisk by his name. So I looked at the bottom of the page. It said: “Summa Cum Laude.” His chemistry thesis was about “Semiconductor-Metal Interfaces,” and his adviser was “Prof. U. Banin.”

These were Israeli Arab doctoral students — many of them women and one of whom accepted her degree wearing a tight veil over her head. Funny — she could receive her degree wearing a veil from the Hebrew University, but could not do so in France, where the veil is banned in public schools. Arab families cheered unabashedly when their sons and daughters received their Hebrew U. Ph.D. diplomas, just like the Jewish parents.

How crazy is this, I thought. Israel’s premier university is giving Ph.D.’s to Arab students, two of whom were from East Jerusalem — i.e. the occupied territories — supervised by Jewish Israeli professors, all while some far-left British academics are calling for a boycott of Israeli universities.

Here’s the part where Tom shows his “street-cred,” lest he completely alienate the Times’s Lefty readers who are used to his customary, more critical appraisals of Israel:

 

I tell this story to underscore the obvious : that the reality here is so much more morally complex than the outside meddlers present it. Have no doubt, I have long opposed Israel’s post-1967 settlements. They have squandered billions and degraded the Israeli Army by making it an army of occupation to protect the settlers and their roads. And that web of settlements and roads has carved up the West Bank in an ugly and brutal manner — much uglier than Israel’s friends abroad ever admit. Indeed, their silence, particularly American Jewish leaders, enabled the settlement lunacy.

Having gotten the obligatory “the settlers are revolting” mantra out of the way, Tom can get back to the issue at hand:

 

But you’d have to be a blind, deaf and dumb visitor to Israel today not to see that the vast majority of Israelis recognize this historic mistake, and they not only approved Ariel Sharon’s unilateral uprooting of Israeli settlements in Gaza to help remedy it, but elected Ehud Olmert precisely to do the same in the West Bank. The fact that it is not happening now is hardly Israel’s fault alone. The Palestinians are in turmoil.

 

Not Israel’s fault alone? Nice stab at even-handedness there, Tom, but wouldn’t it be more truthful to say that it isn’t Israel’s fault at all? To return:

So to single out Israeli universities alone for a punitive boycott is rank anti-Semitism. Let’s see, Syria is being investigated by the United Nations for murdering Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syrian agents are suspected of killing the finest freedom-loving Lebanese journalists, Gibran Tueni and Samir Kassir. But none of that moves the far left to call for a boycott of Syrian universities. Why? Sudan is engaged in genocide in Darfur. Why no boycott of Sudan? Why?

If the far-left academics driving this boycott actually cared about Palestinians they would call on every British university to accept 20 Palestinian students on full scholarships to help them with what they need most — building the skills to run a modern state and economy. And they would call on every British university to dispatch visiting professors to every Palestinian university to help upgrade their academic offerings. And they would challenge every Israeli university that already offers Ph.D.’s to Israeli Arabs to do even more. And they would challenge every Arab university the same way.

That’s what people who actually care about Palestinians would do. But just singling out Israeli universities for a boycott, in the face of all the other madness in the Middle East — that’s what anti-Semites would do.

 

Not “would do”; have done.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:54 | link | comments (1)

Arise, Sir Salman: Back in 1989, the Shia scourge went apeshite over Salman Rushdie’s “insulting” novel, The Satanic Verses and issued a non-reversible fatwa commanding true believers to assassinate the blasphemer. Now the Khomeinists are going freakazoidal because the British crown has seen fit to acknowledge Rushdie’s contributions to literature with a knighthood. From AP via the Ceeb:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Sunday condemned Britain's decision to grant a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie, who was forced into hiding for a decade after the Islamic republic's spiritual leader ordered his assassination.

 

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the decision to grant Britain's highest honour to Rushdie, who wrote the controversial novel "The Satanic Verses," was an insult to the Muslim world.

 

"Awarding a person who is among the most detested characters in the Islamic society is obvious proof of anti-Islamism by ranking British officials," said Hosseini during his weekly press conference.

 

Rushdie went into hiding after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a 1989 fatwa, or religious edict, ordering Muslims to kill the author because his novel "The Satanic Verses" allegedly insulted Islam.

 

The Iranian government declared in 1998 that it would not support but could not rescind the fatwa. Rushdie says he receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on Feb. 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to end his life.

 

"This (award) showed that the movement of insulting Muslims was not accidental but was a planned and organized move that enjoyed support of some Western countries," said Hosseini...

 

Not that the FM is paranoid or delusional or anything.

 

Satiric British Blog Anarorak offers this mordant observation: "Maybe if Salman Rushdie's next book could be about blowing up Israel, nuclear bombs and how very tall and dapper Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, a balance can be attained?"

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:42 | link | comments (1)

Imperialism simplisms: If you have the stomach for such Chomskey-esque mishegas, you can catch Ceeb radio’s Sunday Edition, which today is dedicated to exposing the parallels between a cruel, overweening, imperialistic ancient Rome and a cruel, overweening, imperialistic modern America.

Oooo. I’ve got goosebumps.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Deflating Khalidi: Rashid Khalidi is the Columbia U. academic whose analysis of the origins of the Israel-Palestinian conflict has impressed a lot of people, including Jonathan Kay of the National Post. Kay was particularly wowed by Khalidi’s “insight” that when Jews from Eastern Europe arrived in the area back in the 1890s, the Arab locals viewed them as space aliens, a view which, apparently, persists to this day. (Yeah, they’re “aliens” alright—aliens from the planet “Jew”.)

Luckily, Martin Kramer, another esteemed academic and a rare voice of sanity in the nuthouse that is modern academe, is around to take the wind out of Khalidi’s sails. From the Jerusalem Post:

 

Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor at Columbia University, garners all sorts of kudos for his supposed willingness to accord Palestinians at least some responsibility for their own predicament. He's often cast as a courageous "new historian," particularly in reviews of his last book, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Khalidi, in an interview about that book, claimed his purpose was to show that "the Palestinians had more agency than one version of Palestinian history would suggest--nothing was entirely inevitable."

So what has the courageous historian had to say this morning about the brutal Hamas-Fatah showdown and the fall of Gaza to Hamas? In a National Public Radio interview, he describes both factions as "blind, shortsighted, irresponsible," and reassures us that "neither of these groups, I think, really represents the deepest aspirations of the Palestinians; they've become vehicles for personal and group ambitions rather than what one could honestly call leadership of a Palestinian national movement." How Khalidi knows these "deepest aspirations" is an interesting question. But the answer hardly matters, because at the very end of the interview comes the kicker: the final assignment of responsibility.

 

"This is a direct, logical, inevitable result of American, Israeli, and European policy. The foolishness and the irresponsibility of the Palestinian leadership played an enormous role, but a lot of this has to be laid at the doorstep of Bush administration and Israeli government policy. They almost willed this result. They refused to deal with anybody, they refused to negotiate, they refused to try and bring along the people with whom they could have negotiated, including leaders in Hamas, and this is the logical, inevitable, natural result."

 

So much for Palestinian "agency." When you see Palestinians butcher one another in power struggles, just remember that Bush and Israel have willed it. The Palestinians are too "blind, shortsighted" to see that they're subject to mind control. But even were they to know it--well, the result, in Khalidi's own word, is "inevitable."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:11 | link | comments

School daze: John Tory, the aptly-named leader of the Ontario Conservative Party, has promised to bring religious schools into the public system—whatever that means; currently, as the result of a quirk of Canadian history, Catholic schools are the only ones that receive public funding. Many of those who send their kids to private religious schools are hailing this promise—and no wonder. It takes mucho dinero to pay for such an education. Some of us, however, are a bit uncomfortable with the scheme, even though it means easing an onerous financial burden. A just-released report on religious education in the U.K. goes a long way toward explaining our discomfort, even if it’s written in the kind of beat-around-the-bush bureaucratese that requires translation into plain English. From the Muslim News:

London (IRNA): Religious education (RE) in the UK has improved overall in the past few years but the full benefits of its contribution to society is not being realized, according to a five year study published Sunday.

The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) said that RE often makes a positive contribution to the development of pupils' understanding of diversity and to the promotion of community cohesion.

"However the curriculum and teaching in RE, particularly in secondary schools, do not place sufficient emphasis on exploring the changing political and social significance of religion in the modern world," the watchdog found.

"As a result, the full potential of the subject to contribute to community cohesion, education for diversity and citizenship is not being realized," in said in a 43-page report on 'Making sense of religion: a report on religious education in schools.'

Ofsted's director of education Miriam Rosen said that recent improvements in RE are welcome but that "more needs to be done if the subject is to develop in students a more profound understanding of the significance of religious commitment and diversity and its impact on society."

"Recent world events, the rise of more fundamentalist forms of religion, the growth of faith schools and the debate about the relationship between religion and British identity have given a new impetus and urgency to RE," Rose said.

The report argued that RE should "not ignore controversy or the changes in the role and significance of religion in the modern world."

"Pupils should be taught that religion is complex, that its impact is ambiguous and should be given the opportunity to explore that ambiguity," it said…

 

Allow me to translate. The fact that a lot of British Muslims want their kids to be educated in Muslim religious schools where they learn all sorts of simplistic and negative stuff about kafirs makes it more likely that these kids will want to align themselves with the wider ummah insead of with the wider British society. The folks at Ofsted (a deliciously Orwellian acronym if there ever was one) would like to find a way to mitigate the impact of this education before the unambiguously intolerant fundamentalists do even more damage.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:29 | link | comments

A slap in the dead fraudster’s face: Jubilant about their “great victory,” masked Hamas gunmen cavorted in and made a shambles of Fatah’s Gaza headquarters. But the ultimate indignity and one huge, wet raspberry blown to Fatah chief, Moo Abbas—someone has up and swiped Arafraud’s Nobel Peace Prize. From YNet News:

The Hamas gunmen who broke into the Gaza house of late Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat on Saturday, also stole his Nobel Peace Prize and his widow's evening gowns, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

 

"This morning the Hamas gangs and militia broke into the home of the leader and symbol, Yasser Arafat, broke the door and entered his house under gunpoint. They stole and looted its content, stepped on his picture and military uniform and stole his personal documents," the report said, using harsh words against Hamas.  

 

According to the report, "(The gunmen) smashed the badges and gifts he received from world leaders, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize medal."

 

It appears that the gunmen also visited the private room of the late leaders' widow, Suha Arafat.

"The militiamen broke into his wife and daughter's rooms on the second floor of the house and stole the women's clothes. They also stepped on the picture of the 'shahid rais' (martyr chairman) with his daughter Zahwa and his wife, Suha Arafat."

 

Fatah spokesman Ahmed Abdel Rahman was enraged by the incident, saying that "this crime took place after Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal promised that Arafat's house would not be touched.

 

"This is a real crime which was preceded by crimes of killing, slaughter and theft by the gangs of the Hamas militia and its executing force in the presidential headquarters in Gaza, as well as the execution of Fatah officers.

 

"These crimes will reveal to the entire world the face of the Hamas leadership and the political leadership which rose to power. The Palestinian people will not forgive these criminal gangs which broke into the home of the great Palestinian shahid, Yasser Arafat. This crime will remain a mark of disgrace on the forehead of the Hamas leadership and its criminal gangs," he added.

 

No it won’t. The chattering classes have already decided that the whole sorry non-civil war is the U.S.’s and Israel’s fault, and seem completely unruffled by the bestiality on display this past week. Soon enough it will recede into memory, unlike those “genuine” instances of brutality they’re so fond of resuscitating—Deir Yassin, Jenin, et al.

 

One other comment—while the looters may net a few shekels for Suha’s faded finery, that “peace” prize is utterly worthless.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:06 | link | comments

History lessons: Terminally embarrassed about their history of imperialism, and in the grip of the self-destructive doctrine of multiculturalism, the British are watching the last vestige of national pride ebb away. A piece in—what are the odds?—The Guardian notes how the British education system has all but jettisoned teaching British history to the multicultural jumble, but argues that, for the sake of the nation, it’s time to return to taking pride in “Britishness” and teaching the narratives that build social cohesion.

…The result of this haphazard teaching is a failure to develop any sense of national narrative. And there is a growing conviction that in a multi-cultural age of increasingly fractious religious and ethnic identities, history has an important role to play in forging a unifying notion of Britishness. According to Tory education spokesman David Willetts: 'The loss of national memory means a loss of national identity. Britain needs to be one country - and this means that all British people must share a knowledge and understanding of the events which have made us what we are as a people.'

Part of the government's response has been citizenship courses. Indeed, following Sir Keith Ajegbo's recent report on 'Diversity and Citizenship in the Curriculum', they want to expand their scope. But many of these classes, shared out across the humanities, are eating into preparation and teaching time for history.

There is also an intellectual objection to this state-sanctioned teaching of Britishness. Despite any number of government ministers declaiming the unique virtues of British values - tolerance, rule of law, outward-going approach to the world, democracy, etc - the reality is these are Enlightenment ideals of good citizenship which could be equally taught in Icelandic or Portuguese classrooms. David Starkey has suggested there is much stronger historical ground for teaching the unique attributes of English history: the nuclear family, common law, individualism.

The equally uncomfortable truth is that with the props of Empire, total war and Protestantism taken away, a broader sense of British belonging is in decline. The latest British Social Attitudes survey revealed only 48 per cent of people living in England said that 'British' was the best or only way of describing their identity. This was down from 63 per cent in 1992. English, Welsh and Scottish identity is on the rise. Yet it is precisely the non-ethnic, civic nature of British citizenship which allows it to encompass the plural identities of being black-British, Cornish-British or Muslim-British. Or all three. However, that sense of connection to Britain and its history needs to be nurtured in schools. Which is why it is so depressing to hear Baljeet Ghale, president of the National Union of Teachers, denounce the teaching of British values for fuelling racism.

We need schools to teach a history syllabus which inculcates a sense of identity beyond race and religion; something of a common culture; and a sense of ownership in the institutions and functions of the British state and civil society together with the ideals and history they embody. This doesn't have to be a drum-and-trumpet, kings-and-queens fable. It could encompass Magna Carta and the rule of law, the Civil War and the rise of Parliament, the Scottish Enlightenment and culture of tolerance, Empire and internationalism, the Co-operative movement and Tory party. Their histories could be connected in a narrative flow giving students a considered sense of place in time.

The nature of modern British citizenship, an understanding of who we think we are, is best approached through a historical analysis of our often uncomfortable, multi-faceted past. This year's broad public conversation about 1807 and the abolition of the slave trade has shown how history can be mobilised for this purpose. Schools and colleges across Britain have used the 1807-2007 commemorations for a rich debate about empire, multiculturalism and modern British identity.

As levels of ethnic segregation and community tension increase across Britain, the government is right to focus on the ties that bind us as a nation. But vague notions of citizenship are not enough. We need stories, milestones, battles, heroes, villains and some of the passion of the past which helped to make modern Britain, warts and all. And we need to begin in the history classroom, not the town hall citizenship seminar.

Absolutely! Because if you don’t have a national narrative, the vacuum will be filled the milestones, battles, heroes, villains and passions of those who do have a definite—and they believe, definitive—narrative; the final, perfect one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:37 | link | comments

Smears and arrows of outrageous Islamists: One of the world’s great truth-tellers, the historian who goes by the pseudonym Bat Ye’or, is slated to speak at an upcoming conference in Toronto.  Bat Ye’or, whose name means “daughter of the Nile,” was born in Egypt but now resides in Switzerland. More than anyone else, she is the one who has shone a light on a previously darkened corner of history—the related Islamic doctrines of jihad and laws pertaining to the “dhimma”, people of the book who are allowed to live under Islamic rule provided they follow the pertinent (and largely humiliating) dhimma laws and acknowledge their second-class status or “dhimittude,” a word she coined. Bat Ye’or has also exposed the alliance between EU elites and the Arab world, the subject of her book Eurabia.

Some of those who would prefer that people be kept in the dark about such unpleasantness, in this case the Arab Federation of Canada and Mo Elmasry’s Canadian Islamic Congress, are lobbying to keep her out of the country. Here’s their press release:

 

Fraser Institute-sponsored event also stacked with Canadian media bigots, Islamophobes

 

The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) and the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) issued a joint statement today protesting an upcoming Toronto conference on "Immigration Policy, Border Controls, and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States," organized by the far-right Fraser Institute.

 

The conference is planned for June 28-29 in Toronto.

The event’s leading keynote speaker will be the well known Islamophobe and Anti-Arab author, Bat Ye'or, who wrote (among others) "How Europe Became Eurabia."

 

In addition to Bat Ye’or, the speakers’ list for the two-day conference is heavily weighted with major Canadian bigots, Islamophobes, anti-Arab and anti-Immigrant writers and media personalities.

 

"The blatant bigotry in this gathering of speakers is clearly apparent," today’s joint statement said. "They were chosen for their mutually negative views regarding none-European immigrants and in particular the Muslim and Arab immigrant community."

 

"It is clear that Arab and Muslim immigrants are the assumed target and that this notorious gathering is no more than a high-profile stage for propagating hate against minorities," the statement continued.

 

The CAFand CIC are therefore asking municipal and federal authorities to respond to the June conference in three areas of concern:

 

* Immigration authorities are urged immediately to bar Bat Ye'or from entering Canada;

 

* The Toronto Police Services Hate Crime Unit is being asked to closely monitor the conference proceedings;

 

* Revenue Canada is being requested to investigate why and how tax-deductible donations given to the Fraser Institute are funding such a conference "which is clearly not in the best interests of all Canadians."

 

Au contraire, Mo. Exposing the truth about supremacist doctrines and EU hanky panky is clearly in the best interests of Canadians. Though not, of course, the ones who would want Canadians to remain in their multiculturalist stupor so they won’t notice when these doctrines make inroads into their Trudeaupia.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments

Is nothing sacred?: Looters in Gaza have destroyed a symbol of “secular” Fatah—Yasser Arafat’s home. From the International Herald Tribune:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip: A crowd on Saturday looted the home of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, destroying one of the strongest symbols of the Fatah movement in the Gaza Strip, witnesses and Fatah officials said.

Fatah officials said the crowd took furniture, wall tiles and Arafat's personal belongings.

The villa had been empty since Arafat left for the West Bank in 2001 shortly after the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising. Israel confined Arafat to the West Bank until permitting him to fly to France for medical care in late 2004. Arafat died in France several weeks later…

Well, since Yasser was a supreme kleptocrat who made a career out of stealing his peoples’ money, the tchotchkes really belong to them. Still, if disgruntled Gazans want to find the stuff that’s really worth looting, they should high-tail it to Paris and have a look-see at Suha’s place.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:05 | link | comments

Don't miss: Roger L. Simon on a bench in Malibu chewing the fat with the smokin' (in more ways than one) Mark Steyn.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:45 | link | comments

Self-contempt and self-righteousness breed betrayal: When the Spanish Inquistion got underway, who were in the forefront of ensuring those “conversos” were dealt with in the harshest manner possible?

Why, Jews were, of course.

 

When Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew, had the audacity to rise through the ranks of a profoundly antisemitic French army, and was tried and convicted of treason on trumped up charges that lacked any tangible evidence, and when that conviction rent French society into two, who was in the forefront of the anti-Dreyfusard movement?

 

Why, Jews were, of course.

 

And when Israel, the world’s sole Jewish state, insisted on its right to defend itself against Arabs who were determined to tear it down because they saw the existence of such an entity as contravening Islamic doctrine, who were the spark plugs of a British academic boycott of Israel?

 

Why, Jews were, of course.

 

From YNet News:

 

LONDON – Many of the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel are Jewish or Israeli, the Jewish Chronicle revealed in an investigation published Thursday.

According to the investigation, the Jewish academics justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

The report stated that a high proportion of the academics were deeply involved in UCU, the University and College Union, which last month sparked an international outcry by voting to facilitate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Anti-boycott figures suggest that the campaign has been fuelled by a well-organized mix of far-left activists and Islamic organizations, the JC reported. In reality, the main proponents are a loosely knit collection of academics and trade unionists linked to groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for the Boycotting of Israeli Goods, and Bricup, the British Committee for Universities of Palestine.

Israeli Haim Bresheeth, professor of media and culture at the University of East London, seconded the UCU motion, which called for consideration of the morality of ties with Israeli academia and for discussions on boycotting.

Prof Bresheeth told the JC that a boycott was not an easy decision. “I am Jewish and an Israeli, and I don’t wish harm on either side. But how long can this occupation go on?”

Characterizing opposition to a boycott as insincere, he added, “What we are asking for is not violent. It is civil action against a military occupation.”

 

In ages past, when the influential Jews made common cause with enemies of the Jewish people, temples fell, and Jews were dispersed and/or killed. There is no reason to expect that the same thing couldn’t happen today.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments (2)

Reading the “t” (for terrorism) leaves: Three months ago, a group of Gaza al Qaedists kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston. An odd move, thought many, since Johnston had, in keeping with BBC practice, been shilling for the Palestinians at the expense of Israel. Rather a “biting the hand that feeds you” approach for the jihadists to take, but then, no one ever claimed that holy warriors were the most rational of sorts.

Now that Hamas, the local branch office of the jihad has taken charge (or at least, taken charge again, but this time not through the democratic process), it could use some good P.R., especially since the whackings and pitched hospital battles haven’t exactly put it in a positive light. So it is calling on their fellow jihadis to release their prisoner.

 

My prediction (based on the assumption that Johnston is still alive, of course): the al Qaedists will comply, Hamas will be lauded for its efforts, and in short order the EU will restart the flow of cash into Gaza and there will be calls for Israel to open a “dialogue” with the Islamists.

 

You heard it here first.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments

Very nice!: Good news. Failed British dirty bomber Barot (not to be confused with successful Khazakh journalist Borat) and his fellow collaborators have received a life sentence for their crimes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

An unpleasant but bracing dose of reality: For those who can handle the truth, read it here, by Caroline Glick in JWR, and see it here, a ten minute video presentation on FrontPage.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:11 | link | comments

Debate on hate: A bastion of traditional British values, the House of Lords, took time yesterday to debate one of the most traditional values—endemic antisemtism. The ugly sentiments have always lurked fairly close to the surface, to emerge full blown from time to time, but now the Judenhass has now reached levels that even the normally phlegmatic members of the Upper House find alarming. By James Lewis in the American Thinker:

It [British anti-Semitism] sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? After all, isn't Britain the country with the longest tradition of tolerance in the world?

 

The answer is Yes, it used to be, and No, it isn't any more.

 

According to a UK Telegraph article entitled, "Anti-Semitism 'worst since 1936'",  the House of Lords just saw a debate on anti-Semitism at British university campuses, triggered by the UCU university faculty boycott against Israel. 

 

Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism can never be made lightly, so it is best to quote the Lords' members who spoke. We must assume they picked their words with care.

"A Jewish peer has warned that anti-Semitism is at its worst level in Britain since he fled here from Germany in 1936. ... Lord Moser said he was particularly concerned about anti-Jewish feeling in Britain's universities."

"Addressing a House of Lords debate on anti-Semitism on university campuses, the crossbench peer said: "It is just over 70 years since I came to this country and I have to say that I've never been more concerned about the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, including this country.

"This is evident in many ways and among my greatest worries is what is happening on university campuses where there have been many examples of anti-Semitic outbursts and discrimination."...

Other members agreed.

"Baroness Morris of Bolton, for the Conservatives, attacked "a handful of (university) lecturers who seem to have hijacked their union".

She said the proposed boycott "makes us look, unfairly, biased and petty-minded and it plays into the hands of radical fanatics on campus. There is a time and a place for teenage gesture politics - this isn't it."

 

But of course the University and College Union (UCU) claims to speak for all university faculty in Britain in this boycott.

"Lord Patten, the former Conservative education secretary, described the idea of a boycott as "entirely abhorrent - engagement is always better than exclusion"."

 

"Baroness Walmsley, a Liberal Democrat, also opposed a boycott, saying: ‘I abhor the idea of limitations on legitimate academic freedom within reasonable limits.'"

 

"Lord Adonis, the education Minister said: ‘The Government unequivocally deplores any proposed boycott....'"

 

All that makes it sound as if sanity is breaking out in the United Kingdom. Wonderful. But will it make a difference? The academic boycott campaign has been on the boil for years, almost surely funded by Arab oil money. The Hard Left has been pushing a hate-Israel campaign on British campuses for half a century. And the British body politic has simply responded by drifting farther Left, Left, Left. Today, the biggest voice of biased anti-Zionism is the fabled British Broadcasting Corporation, perhaps the most powerful organ of propaganda in the world.

 

So the traditional British values expressed in the House of Lords are encouraging --- but much, much more needs to be done for Britain to rediscover herself…

It's going to be hard to "rediscover herself" when so many of her newer arrivals are onside with the lunacy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:46 | link | comments

Feeble, feckless futile: That’s the Bush team’s response to developments in Gaza. From the New York Daily News:

Israel has a radical Islamic state sitting on its doorstep.

Hamas militants seized control of the Gaza Strip yesterday and deposed the Palestinian political party that recognizes the Jewish state - and then proceeded to shoot vanquished Fatah Party fighters in the street like dogs.

"The era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived," Islam Shahawan, a spokesman for Hamas' militia, told Hamas radio.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared a state of emergency and dissolved his coalition government, firing the Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. But Hamas just laughed.

"Hamas rejects the Abbas decision," senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said. "In practical terms these decisions are worthless."

Nizar Rayan, another prominent Hamas official, called on "Abbas' army of prostitutes to surrender or else they will be executed in public."

By nightfall, green Hamas flags were flying from the rooftops of the presidential compound and other Palestinian Authority bastions while Hamas fighters boasted they had "executed" Samih al-Madhoun, a close ally of Abbas' top security aide.

Other Fatah fighters loyal to Abbas were marched half-naked from the hated Preventive Security Service complex in Gaza City. Witnesses reported that some were later executed gangland-style by masked Hamas militiamen. "This is a real coup against the Palestinian Authority," said Nabil Amr, a top Abbas aide.

Unable and unwilling to intervene, the Israelis watched with growing despair as Hamas - bankrolled by Iran and bent on destroying the Jewish state - took over a territory they had just turned over to the Palestinian Authority in 2005.

"Hamas has to stop terrorizing the Palestinian people," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Secretary of State Rice telephoned Abbas in the West Bank but could do little more than voice her support for the beleaguered Palestinian leader…

Tony, Condi—people are getting whacked by jihadi thugs, and that the best you can do?

 

Well, at least no one’s talking about that ridiculous “road map.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:25 | link | comments (4)

Crunching the numbers: Now that Hamas has seized power in Gaza, the EU has had second thoughts about resuming the jizya just now. What’s really needed, according to some high level EUnuchs, is for the people who are knifing each other and hurling rivals off rooftops to quit their hurling and knifing and sit down and hash out a solution. From AP via USA Today:

BRUSSELS (AP) — The EU suspended its humanitarian aid projects in the Gaza Strip on Thursday as Hamas effectively took control of the territory in battles with the rival Fatah movement, prompting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-Fatah unity government.

Brussels also called for a "humanitarian truce" to allow for an evacuation of the wounded in the Gaza Strip.

The EU favors Abbas, whose Fatah organization is seen in Europe as more moderate and open to dialogue about creating a Palestinian state living in peace next to Israel.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government also expressed deep concern.

"Today's announcement that the national unity government has come to an end is, of course, a matter for regret," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. "Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority who seek a peaceful two-state solution.”

Beckett, who discussed the Gaza crisis with Abbas and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the phone, called on Hamas and Fatah to agree to a cease-fire and open peace talks…

Where is that peaceful majority when you really need it?

 

Let’s do the math, shall we? Two Palestinian states plus one Jewish state equals…the exact same amount of land that, one way or another, the Arabs ultimately hope to control.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:00 | link | comments

A sickness prevails: As Hamas prepares for decisive victory over its Hamas rivals in Gaza, one can’t help but recall the stirring words of President Bush when the Palestinian populace participated in a democratic election for the first time. It seems ages ago, doesn’t it, that the President assured us the election was a sign of a society’s “health,” even if the Palestinians freely chose to elect a regime of genocidal terrorists committed to Israel’s destruction, and even if their society has become so ridden with hateful and deranged pathologies about “the Zionists” that entire generations of Palestinians have been rendered incapable of rational thought.

As the grim inevitablity comes to pass, there is only one thing to say: some “democracy”; some “health.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:10 | link | comments (2)

Same old Malarkey: When I first read the opening bit of this dispatch by the Globe and Mail’s Middle East correspondent, Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon, I though, how resourceful. Malarkey has managed to locate that rarest of species, a Palestinian who claims that her heart’s delight would be a two state solution. 

Upon second reading, though, I realized that’s not what she’s saying at all:

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK — Pulling the cap off her red marker, Wafa Abdel Rahman highlighted the words she had just written in bold black ink. “Who are you shooting at?” the poster read when she was done. “You are my brothers.”

With at least 60 of her fellow Palestinians dead after four days of violence between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip – internecine warfare that spread Wednesday to the West Bank – Ms. Abdel Rahman was despondent as she and two other women prepared to stage a lonely peace protest in Ramallah, a city many worry could also soon be a battlefield.

The 37-year-old said she was mourning not only the victims of the fighting, which many are now calling a civil war, but also the looming death of an idea she has cherished her entire life: the dream of a single Palestinian state, based on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“It's not just about Gaza,” she said. “It's about what it is to be a Palestinian. It's about the whole national cause.”…

So Ms. Abdel Rahman dreams of a single Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza. Meaning that those two areas aren't the whole enchillada but are the basis of the much larger Palestinian entity that would take in a defunct Jewish state previously known as Israel. Of course, Malarkey doesn’t come out and say so in so many words because that would make his pathetic Palestinian du jour seem less sympathetic, and thus detract from his overall aim of making Palestinians look good and Israelis look bad. (You might say that’s his script and he’s sticking to it.)

 

Malarkey, whose penchant for heartstring-tugging melodrama starring Palestinian victims is rivalled only by his barely containable disdain for the Jewish state, then tries to slip this one past readers:

With the Islamist Hamas rapidly tightening its military control on the coastal territory, and the secular Fatah still very much dominant in the West Bank, many Palestinians are starting to speak aloud about a topic that was taboo until now: whether there will be – if and when the Israeli occupation of the territories ends – one Palestinian state or two. That is, a “Hamasistan” in Gaza and a “Fatahland” in the West Bank.

Hamisistan and Fatahland—what a chilling concept!

 

Here’s my letter to the Globe:

 

Mark MacKinnon notes the disparity in how the two Palestinian territories—“religious” Gaza and the “secular” West Bank—are run, and attributes the chaos in Gaza to the fact that Hamas is in charge of that territory, and the relative calm in West Bank to fact that Fatah predominates there. He also says that many Palestinians are beginning to broach a previously “taboo” topic: whether, when “the Israeli occupation of the territories ends,” there will be two Palestinian states instead of one.

 

Well, taboo hoo. The “taboo” the Palestinians should really be discussing, if they can put down their weapons long enough to actually talk, is whether the chaos in Gaza is due to the fact that there is no occupation in Gaza—Israel left the area more than a year ago—and the relative calm in the West Bank is a function of Israel, upon seeing the catastrophic results of the Gaza disengagement, deciding to retain control of that area for the time being.

 

The Palestinians have demonstrated that they are incapable of making a go of things in one territory. What makes anyone think they will be any more successful at running two?

 

Spellcheck caught my misspelling of “territories” as “terrortories.”

 

A misspelling but not a mischaracterization.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:11 | link | comments

Anti-dhimmitude in the U.K.: Having a spine is such a rarity in Britain these days that when a political leader displays any lack of flaccidity in the backbone department it actually seems rather a shock. In a good way, of course. From Haaretz:

The leader of Britain's Conservative party, David Cameron, called himself a "Zionist" Tuesday as he slammed a British initiative for an academic boycott against Israel.

Cameron, responding to questions at the annual luncheon of Conservative Friends of Israel, said the academic boycott was completely uncalled for, and that attacks against Israel often slid into anti-Semitism.

"If by Zionist you mean that the Jews have the right to a homeland in Israel and the right to a country then I am a Zionist," the Tory leader said, adding that support for Israel is "in the DNA" of members of his party.

 

He also justified construction of the separation fence, but expressed concern that it might torpedo a two-state solution.

Okay, so his spinal fusion (as well as insight into what is really going to torpedo a two-state solution, ie the reality that the Palestinians are working on their own two state solution at the moment—one in Gaza, controlled by Hamas, and one in the West Bank, controlled by Fatah) is a work in progress. But he appears to be on the right track.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:23 | link | comments

A way with words: Leon Wieseltier has an eloquent dissection of The Sopranos, a show which, in the estimation of many (me included) may well have constituted television’s finest hour (even if some of us aren't so thrilled with the gimmicky way David Chase chose to end it). In this paragraph, Wieseltier explains why the show’s writing was head and shoulders above the clever, empty blather that was shovelled on shows written by another critical darling, Aaron Sorkin:

Consider only the language. Or more precisely, compare David Chase's dialogue to Aaron Sorkin's dialogue. In Sorkin's shiny nonsense, people speak in repartee, and always find the words they need, and nothing insignificant, nothing tedious, is ever uttered. They talk as nattily as they look. Even their afflictions are oddly high-spirited, as coolness conquers all. There is not an unmordant or unmoralized second in anybody's day. Sorkin's phony people go from portentousness to hipness and back. They are the figments of a disastrously glamorous imagination, the polished puppets of a shallow man's notion of profundity. In The Sopranos, by contrast, there is no eloquence, even when there is beauty. Silences abound. These people speak the way people actually speak: they lie, and lie again; they hide; they repair gladly to banalities, and to borrowed words; they struggle for adequacy in communication; they say nothing at all. Their verbal resources are cruelly lacking for their spiritual needs. They cannot say what they mean, or they do not know what they mean. Their obscenities are their tribute to the power of their feelings: the diction of their desperation. When they reach for sophistication, they mangle it. Their metaphors are awkward and homely, as in Tony's climactic soliloquy in his therapist's office about getting off, and staying off, the bus. Yet all this inarticulateness is peculiarly lyrical, and deeply moving. It is also a relief from the talkativeness that passes for thought in fancier places. Words should be fought for.

 

That's not to say that the Sopranos weren't witty. To quote the immortal words of Uncle Junior, who, before he lapsed into a fog of senility could always be counted on for a colourful turn of phrase: "I got feds so far up my ass, I can taste Brylcream.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:05 | link | comments

Dangerous nutter convergence: Jonathan Tobin writes about how Israel bashers on opposite ends of the political continuum are willing to set aside their differences for the sake of tearing down Israel’s legitimacy. And, quel surprise, some of the loudest voices on the Left are Jewish. From JWR:

What happens when the far right collides with the hard left? Will the universe explode? Will the laws of physics be distorted by some anti-Newtonian implosion of logic? No, they won't. Not as long as the two ends of the spectrum are uniting to slam the Jews, that is.

 

Such a moment arrived when the pre-eminent journal of the far right, Pat Buchanan's American Conservative opened its pages to Phillip Weiss, a stalwart of the left. Why would paleo-conservative Pat lend his bully pulpit to Weiss? Simple, so he could promote him as yet another Jew who opposes Zionism.

 

Weiss, a prominent liberal New York author and magazine writer who's been flailing against a variety of Jewish targets for years has lately found himself in the unlikely position of becoming an honorary member in good standing of the troglodyte right.

 

'DON'T BECOME A NUT'
He is also the latest of a growing group of Israel-haters claiming to be the victims of the Zionist conspiracy. In Weiss' case, he ceased writing a blog on the Web site of the New York Observer because his editor and publishers were no longer willing to support his "right" to use their publication for attacking Israel and its supporters for being disloyal to America and for being, at least indirectly, to blame for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In his piece in the American Conservative, he related that his editor Peter Kaplan urged him to can the paranoia about the Zionists. "As your friend," he says that Kaplan advised him, "Don't become a nut." He thought that Weiss "shouldn't allow the political crank to crowd out the storyteller and humorist" in him because he had become "unhinged by politics."

 

But being a "nut" on the issue of Jews backing Israel is too important to Weiss because as he wrote in the same piece, "The towers fell [on 9/11] in part because of our support for Israel's occupation of Arab lands. … Now Israel's policies toward the Arabs were ours. On my blog, I raised the issue of dual loyalty."

 

So now, Weiss is finding a new literary home with, as he has put it, his "new friends" — the followers of the brazen anti-Semite Buchanan.

 

Weiss' tale of woe is just one more example of an Israel-hater, even one with a Jewish background, who finds himself drawn to rhetorical violence against Israel and the Jews…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:30 | link | comments (1)

Graphic reality: Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words—and then some:

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:19 | link | comments

Mediocre Canucks: A scathing report has just been released that slams Canada for having a culture of complacency, one that allows for little in the way of innovation. If we don’t change our ways, says the report, we will be unable to halt our inevitable slide into mediocrity.

Sounds like Canada could learn a thing or two from Israel, where innovation is a way of life.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments

The Monkey and the mullahs: A piece on the American Thinker site contends that ordinary Iranians loathe the Islamic yahoos in charge of them, especially Moo Ahmadinejad, whom they derisively refer to as “the Monkey.” The Monkey and the mullahs care nothing about “Iran” per se. They care only about the eternal bliss that will be theirs once they push the world into the Apocalypse:

…Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian people any more than his turbaned-colleagues presently ruling Iran do. What needs to be understood is that in fact Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, above all else, are true Muslims and despise anything "Iranian" and its ancient "pre-Islamic" heritage.

Iranians are proud of their historical friendship with the Jewish people. The bond of friendship goes back to the landmark action of King Cyrus the Great of Persia. In 537 B.C., having conquered Babylon, the benevolent King Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and empowered them to return to the Promised Land and build their temple.

The majority of Iranians nowadays want to distance themselves from the Islamic regime in Iran and the likes of Ahmadinejad. Iranians wish the world to make a distinction between Iranian People and the despicable Islamic regime, its wicked followers and traitorous lobbyists.  

"The Monkey" sees Jews as the sworn enemies of Islam. The hostility dates back to the time of Muhammad's own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews "people of the book," and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath on them.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was "shocked and dismayed" at a report that Iran's hard-line president said the world would soon witness the destruction of Israel, the United Nations said Thursday.

It is time for the world to see Ahmadinejad and his handlers for what they are. These end-of-the-worlders are not interested in any negotiation, any compromise or live-and-let-live. They are determined to be the soldiers of Mahdi come-what-may. They have no problem with the total destruction of the world. They are headed for a life of eternal bliss in Allah's paradise. They hardly care, they would even rejoice, if the rest of humanity is subjected to a tragic death in the nuclear, biological and chemical wasteland of planet earth.

What make matters terribly dangerous are the modern instruments of force and the willingness to use them. Centuries ago, the sword in the hand of the Islamists carved a huge empire. Now, with the weapons of mass destruction, the entire world is at peril.

Iranian Muslims are victims of an Islamic virus that has destroyed in them their traditional respect for diversity. It is the Iranian ancient fundamental belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia.

There exists such duplicity within the Iranian culture. Originally, Iranians were forced to accept Islam to save their lives from the Arab invaders, but deep inside the heart of every single Iranian alive to this date, the burning sensation and resentment of the Arab-Islamic invasion to their culture is forever smodering. Most Iranians may actually confess being Muslims; yet, the overwhelming Iranians have never read Quran or understood its language…

 

The question is: do Iranians have the wherewithal to rise up and take control of the runaway train before the religious zanies crash it into the abyss?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments (1)

 Our enemy, Iran: The U.S. is holding off on bombing the bejeezus out of Iran’s nuclear facilities because it is depending on Iran to “help” put an end to the chaos in Iraq.

I think now would be an excellent time to rethink that strategy. From the AP via Ceeb:

PARIS (AP) - The United States has "irrefutable" evidence that Iran is transferring weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, with the knowledge of the Iranian government, and NATO has intercepted some of the shipments, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.

"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns on CNN. "It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."

Speaking separately to The Associated Press, Burns also said that NATO needs to act to stop the shipments. The Iran-Afghanistan frontier is "a very long border. But the Iranians need to know that we are there and that we're going to oppose this."

"It's a very serious question," he said, adding that Iran is in "outright violation" of relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

There’s absolutely no way you can win a war if you can’t tell your friends from your enemies—and it’s sheer lunacy to count on your enemy to help you win.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments

Hospital hijinks: As they teeter on the brink of/edge closer to/remain on the verge of all out civil war, the dimwitted thugs on both sides of the Palestinian conflict have taken the battle to an unlikely—and idiotic—location: hospitals.  From ABC News:

With gunmen using their rooftops as sniper positions and doctors and nurses afraid to come to work, Gaza's hospitals are finding themselves on the front lines of the Palestinians' increasingly bloody internal fight.

Of eight hospitals in the violent coastal territory, one shut down after three people were killed there. The others are understaffed and face constant harassment by militants, even as more casualties are carried in needing treatment.

Gunmen from the rival Fatah and Hamas movements are engaged in a battle for power that has left dozens dead and wounded in Gaza in the last month.

"We ourselves are not secure. How can we look after the lives of others?" said Ayed al-Wahidi, a doctor at Shifa Hospital, Gaza's largest medical center.

An ambulance came under fire Monday after the hospital dispatched it to pick up a trauma specialist as fighting raged on the grounds, al-Wahidi said. The doctor eventually made it. But other medics have not been able to get to work, leaving the hospital barely able to handle the relentless stream of casualties.

Wessam Awadallah, another doctor at Shifa, said the hospital needed 50 doctors to treat all the wounded Tuesday, but only 20 were on duty.

Masked men have also been roaming the corridors of the hospital, occasionally clashing with each other. "We don't know who they are or who they are fighting," Awadallah said. "There will come a moment when we will not be able to treat anyone and let them die."

In the European Hospital in the town of Khan Yunis, Hamas-affiliated security guards used the hospital's roof as a staging ground for an assault on a nearby Fatah position on Tuesday, said Atta al-Jaabari, the head of nursing.

The assault frightened the medical staff and children at a kindergarten on the grounds, he said. Afterward, the hospital sent home all nonessential staff and patients whose lives were not in danger. But the doctors and nurses remained.

"We can't go. Who would we leave the sick people to?" al-Jaabari said...

To the lunatics. Who, clearly, are already running the asylum.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:09 | link | comments

Libyan backslider: One of the Bush administration’s great success stories—supposedly—was the deal it struck with Libya’s addlepated potentate. An editorial in the New York Sun more or less puts an end to the delusion that the Colonel has seen the error of his ways:

Even as the Democratic presidential contenders are suggesting they 'd favor diplomacy rather than force in dealing with America's enemies, the evidence is mounting of backsliding in Libya, where the Bush administration did a diplomatic deal rather than pursuing a policy of regime change. Libya recently sent the American government a letter declaring that on June 14 it will back out of a contract it had signed with America to destroy 25 tons of chemical weapons and 1,433 tons of precursor materials, Reuters reported. And yesterday in Sofia, President Bush was reduced to pleading publicly with Colonel Gadhafi for the release of five Bulgarian nurses who have been held captive by Libya since 1999 and were sentenced to death after a show trial on trumped-up charges of infecting Libyan children with the virus that causes AIDS.

"We strongly support the release of the Bulgarian nurses in Libya. That's the position of the United States. They should be released, and they should be allowed to be returned to their families. We will continue to make clear to Libya that the release of these nurses is a high priority for our country," Mr. Bush said. The limits of a deal that left Colonel Gadhafi in power become clearer by the day. It's going to be difficult even for the Bush State Department to portray as a diplomatic success a deal that leaves the Bulgarian nurses in jail, and Colonel Gadhafi with 25 tons of deadly chemical weapons. All the more reason to look with extreme skepticism at proposals for a similar "grand bargain" with North Korea or Iran.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:29 | link | comments

Suicide prevention: Is a rift developing between the lit’ler Hitler and some of his backers due to their beamish boy’s suicidal desire to entice Great Satan into a war? Amir Taheri seems to think so.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:04 | link | comments (1)

Are we there yet?: They're throwing each other off rooptops and gleefully and animalistically mutilating bodies. But as far as the International Herald Tribune is concerned, the Palestinans are only now "nearing" civil war.

What a joke. If it were anyone other than the Palestinians acting with such incivility, the conflict would have been officially acknowledged as a civil war eons ago.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:26 | link | comments (1)

Ivory tower power: Yair Lapid responds to those thoughtful, compassionate souls of British academe, the ones who have expressed their “humanitarianism” by calling for a boycott of the Jewish state. From YNet News:

It was with great interest I read of the British University and College Union’s call for an academic boycott of Israel. I was glad to discover that the association has not yet made a final decision as to how best to boycott us. Their highnesses are still pondering the decision. The blue-gray smoke wafts from their pipes, their foreheads wrinkle, a watch on their wrist sits underneath the sleeve of a Harris Tweed jacket with its leather elbow patch. Maybe they say to themselves, perhaps we’ll boycott them immediately or maybe we’ll wait a bit.

 

No reason to be hasty, these sweaty baby-makers somewhere in the Middle East, won’t stop killing each other in the near future. In the meantime let’s have another pint and study the rare 18th-century manuscript that we found in the library.

 

We Israelis know that the decision has a comic side to it. Our academic institutions have always been the fortresses of the radical left, opposed to the occupation with all its heart. We sort of suspected that the Brits don’t really get what is going on here but this is the kind of ignorance that elicits the same kind of wicked laughter from students who catch their teacher making a mistake.

 And yet maybe it is me who is making a mistake? Maybe I am too easily ridiculing the opinions of people who care, who are innocently trying to make the world a better place? For every human group that has adopted a lofty cause, there are always the cynics like me who believe that these idealists don’t understand the real world.

 Those who opposed apartheid were told that the struggle against international communism was more important, environmentalists were called ‘tree huggers,’ and Tony Blair was told repeatedly that the struggle in Northern Ireland would never end. It is possible that instead of ranting and raving, getting angry, feeling insulted and canceling plans to travel to London to see some theatre in the West End, it is worthwhile to try and help the honorable lecturers in their deliberations. Perhaps this is immodest of me but I believe there is one small thing I can add: I don't want to die!

 While it may be true that the humane thing is to remove the roadblocks and checkpoints, to stop the occupation immediately, to enable the Palestinians freedom of movement in the territories, to tear down the bloody inhumane wall, to promise them the basic rights ensured to every individual. It’s just that I will end up paying for this with my life. Petty of me perhaps to dwell on this point. After all, how important is my life when compared to the chance for peace, justice and equal rights. But still, call me a weakling; call me thickheaded – I don’t want to die…

How very selfish of you, Yair. What is your life compared to the inconvenience experienced by Palestinians who merely want to go about their daily business free of interference from arrogant Jews?  The British boycotters have already spoken: your life, being a Jewish one, is worth nothing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:06 | link | comments

Alawite now, baby it’s Alawite now: The UN has the moody blues about the agita at that Palestinian “refugee camp” in Lebanon, and is backing the Lebanese Army 100 per cent in its battle against the jihadists. (Funny how the UN stands foresquare behind Lebanon’s efforts to root out the terrorists, but screams bloody murder when the Israelis do the same thing). The UN is also extremely concerned that Syria is fueling the fire by smuggling in arms to the refugee camp. (Funny how at the same time the UN seems not at all concerned about Syria smuggling in thousands of missiles to Hezbollah.) From AP via the IHT:

UNITED NATIONS: The U.N. Security Council gave strong backing to the Lebanese government's fight against militants holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp and reiterated its "deep concern" about mounting evidence that arms are being smuggled across the border from Syria.

The council adopted a statement after a briefing by Terje Roed-Larsen, the U.N. envoy for Lebanon-Syria issues, who expressed "alarm" at reports by the Lebanese army and observers that both arms and militia men are crossing the border from Syria to Lebanon.

"It seems today that the greatest obstacle to stabilizing the fragile situation in Lebanon is precisely the very presence of these militias and the build-up which we unfortunately are witnessing," he told reporters afterward.

The Security Council met and adopted the statement on the day a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri came into effect. The council gave Lebanon's deeply divided parliament until June 10 to ratify the statutes to establish the tribunal. Lebanon did not, so the court was automatically established by the Security Council.

The issue of the tribunal has sharply polarized Lebanon. It is at the core of a deep political crisis between the Western-backed government led by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and the Syrian-backed opposition led by Hezbollah. The tensions have taken on an increasingly sectarian tone that has erupted into street battles in recent months, killing 11 people.

At the same time, the Lebanese army is confronting militants in the north.

Clashes between the Fatah Islam militants and Lebanese troops in the Nahr el-Bared camp in northern Lebanon have claimed at least 130 lives since they broke out on May 20. The fighting — the worst internal violence in the country since the 1975-90 civil war — has dragged on, with the Lebanese army besieging the camp in efforts to uproot the al-Qaida inspired militants inside.

"The council condemns the ongoing criminal and terrorist acts in Lebanon, including those perpetrated by Fatah al-Islam, and fully supports the efforts carried out by the Lebanese government and army to ensure security and stability throughout Lebanon," the statement said.

Roed-Larsen said the Lebanese government is currently interrogating terrorists arrested for involvement in the recent violence.

Saniora has already said publicly "that there existed links between these militants, who entered Lebanon from Syria, and some of the Syrian intelligence services," he said. "We are awaiting the release of further information from the investigation."

The Security Council reiterated "its deep concern at mounting information by Israel and other states of illegal movements of arms in Lebanon, and in particular across the Lebanese-Syrian border." Members said they look forward to a report from a U.N. team currently assessing security along the border.

Roed-Larsen's report said "the picture that emerges from the Lebanese army report ... is that there is a steady flow of a variety of weapons, other provisions and armed elements, across the border from Syria."

He noted that Syrian President Bashar Assad has "has consistently denied reports of illegal arms trafficking through the Syrian-Lebanese border, except for individual incidents" and has pointed to his country's efforts in enforcing the U.N. weapons embargo.

Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari called Roed Larsen biased, saying "he has always aimed at escalating the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, at aggravating the situation, rather than at calming the situation."

Naturally, Syria’s UN Ambassador sees things a little differently:

"Those who would benefit from this tension are those who are working against the sovereignty of Lebanon, ... the territorial integrity of Lebanon and the unity of Lebanon. Of course, Israel is in far front of these powers," he said.

Of course.

 

Here’s the Dry Bones take on Syria’s involvement:

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:41 | link | comments

Explaining the femikazes: Ever wonder what prompts a woman to want to become a human bomb? It can’t possibly be the promised rewards of the afterlife, since women supposedly get dwarfs, not Chippendale’s hunks. And as investigative reporter Judith Miller points out, it has nothing to do with feminism or granting women equal rights in this one area; nor is it a matter of women who are perceived as “damaged goods” trying to “redeem themselves” through martyrdom, since plenty of other “undamaged” women seem ready to volunteer. So what gives? From Policy Review (link via Martin Kramer):

…[Would-be shahida]Wafa al-Biss, the ultimate victim, is the exception among suicide terrorists, says Yoram Schweitzer, an Israeli terrorism expert. “I reject the notion that all female suicide bombers are ‘damaged goods,’” he told me over coffee at the Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. Only a tiny minority, he said, is really coerced into committing suicide. “Most are true volunteers. Men and women alike clamor to do this. I also reject the argument that women are more easily manipulated than men.”

If anything, female suicide bombers, statistics show, tend to be better educated than their male counterparts. Between 30 percent and 40 percent of them have attended university. “They are the smarter of these smart weapons,” says Anat Berko, an Israeli criminologist whose interviewed suicide bombers and those who sent them for her new book, The Path to Paradise (Praeger, 2007).

Now that suicide bombing has spread to some 32 groups in 28 countries, says Ami Pedahzur, an Israeli expert at the University of Texas, most counterterrorism experts have discarded the earlier “profiles” they assembled of the “average” suicide bomber. In the first wave of modern suicide bombing, which started against American and other western targets in Lebanon in the early 1980’s, suicide bombers tended to be mostly young, male, and single. That is no longer the case.

The face of modern terrorism, and of suicide bombing in particular, is increasingly female. Though still a minority among suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq, the growing number of women willing to volunteer for such missions is especially evident in non-Palestinian and non-Islamic secular movements. Christoph Reuter, the German author of My Life Is a Weapon: A Modern History of Suicide Bombing (Princeton University Press, 2004), notes that one-third of the estimated 10,000 Tamil Tiger cadres in Sri Lanka have been female. Among suicide commandos, female participation is close to 60 percent.

The same is true for the pkk, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the largely secular Muslim militants who have been battling Turkey since the 1970s for Kurdish rights and autonomy. Eleven out of some 15 suicide bombings staged by the pkk since 1996 were conducted by women, as were three out of six foiled attacks. In Chechnya, women have conducted 43 percent of the attacks since suicide missions began there in 2000.

This perverse “feminization” of suicide attacks also undercuts the theory that women are more likely to choose peaceful mechanisms for conflict resolution than men. In her influential book, Dying to Kill (Columbia University Press, 2005). Bloom dismisses the notion that women are somehow inherently more inclined towards moderation. “But while male suicide bombers seem to be motivated by religious or nationalist fanaticism,” she argues, female operatives, in Palestine and elsewhere, “appear more often motivated by very personal reasons.” This was certainly the case for Shefa’a al-Qudsi, and even more dramatically for Wafa al-Biss, who seemed to have been driven by a “cocktail” of motives — personal distress and shame, a quest for revenge and enhanced social status for themselves and their families, nationalism, hatred of occupation, religious ideology, and political culture. Louise Richardson, a lecturer at Harvard, sums it up in what she calls the three “r’s” — “exacting revenge, attaining renown, and eliciting a reaction.”

Me, I attribute it to three other factors: nihilism, a pathological hatred of Jews and the dementia that goes hand in hand with Islamism.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:19 | link | comments

Love Iranian style: Islam Online has an unintentionally amusing piece about dating in Tehran. The article attempts to set us straight about assuming that there are roadblocks to inter-gender canoodling in the Shia theocracy. In fact, young people are apparently free to “date”—as long as it’s done in public, in full view of the religious police.

Ah, freedom.

 

TEHRAN — Sitting in a corner of Tehran's sprawling Laleh park, Leila and Vahid whisper and smile after every few moments while holding hands.

Yes, they are on a date, which might be difficult to imagine for those who never visited Iran and harbour stereotypes about the country.

These kinds of scenes are not something beyond ordinary in Tehran, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

"We come here almost every day except Friday (official holiday in Iran)," Vahid, a University of Tehran medical student, told Islamonline.net with a shy smile on his face.

"This is a very peaceful place. We can sit and talk here without any disturbance or fear for hours."

Located in the northern posh area of Tehran, Laleh Park is considered one of the famous dating places in the city.

Covering an area of 5 kilometers, Laleh Park was constructed by Queen Farah Deeba, the wife of the last shah of Iran Reza Shah Pehlvi, in the mid 70s.

The park was originally named after her.

However, like all other remnants of the Pehlvi dynasty, it was re-named Laleh Park after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Dating Haven  

Scores of young couples are seen sitting in the corners and on the benches in the afternoon and the evening.

They hardly bother about the Pasdars (revolutionary guards) who stand or sit a few steps away in small groups.

Besides Laleh Park, Millat Park and Jamshedia Park are also known as dating places.

However, being located in the middle of the city and near Tehran University and other educational institutions, Laleh Park has an edge on the two parks.

Vahid and Leila, both in their early 20s, are classmates and plan to marry soon after graduation.

They were initially uncomfortable to be interviewed or talk about their relation (sic).

"Why are you interested in our matter. It's very normal here in line with other societies," said Leila, covering half of her head with a fashionable scarf and attired in a fitted gown.

"We are interested in each other and plan to marry."

Asked about her hijab, Leila said "It is normal for me, because I never saw the era when women were without hijab."

Vahid immediately intervened and asserted that some women had not accepted the hijab obligation wholeheartedly.

"I think if there are some more liberties, women will be happy."

The couple faces no problems from the revolutionary guards.

"Holding hand is not an issue. It's also true that Pasdars do not object to that but there are various other restrictions, which I cannot explain, otherwise I will be in trouble," said Vahid...

Oops! Looks like Vahid accidentally let the cat out of the bag: hand-holding is tolerated (for the moment); other unspecified behaviour is not.

 

So much for dispelling those “stereotypes.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:03 | link | comments

Barbarity in Gaza: Can we call it a civil war yet? From Reuters:

GAZA (Reuters) - For Gaza taxi driver Tamer Ammar, the internal fighting became all-out civil war when militants starting killing their rivals by throwing them off 15-storey buildings and mutilating their bodies.

"I think we are in Iraq, not in Gaza," said Ammar, a 40-year-old father of six.

"Snipers on rooftops killing people. Bodies mutilated and dumped in the streets in very humiliating ways. Houses bombarded and civilians killed. What else does civil war means but this?"

A surge in factional fighting between ruling Hamas Islamists and President Mahmoud Abbas's secular Fatah faction has killed at least 20 Palestinians in the last four days alone.

Well over 600 Palestinians have been killed in factional fighting since Hamas came to power in March 2006 after defeating Fatah in parliamentary elections, according to one prominent Palestinian human rights group.

Ceasefires have frequently been declared but never honoured for long.

Interspersed with drive-by shootings and rocket-propelled grenade attacks, both sides have shown extraordinary flashes of brutality in recent days.

A member of Abbas's Force 17 security service was the first to be thrown off a 15-storey building. A few hours later, Hamas accused Fatah of throwing a Hamas supporter off another building… 

Which begs the obvious question: how can anyone continue to hold out hope that these brutes, these barbarians are capable of building a viable state?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:35 | link | comments

Libel lunacy: In their drive to expunge Israel, the Arabs have come up with a slew of libels—some newer, some older—with which to slander the Jewish state. Palestinian Media Watch documents ten years in the life of one of the standard “big lies”—that Israel has designs on the entire Arab world and aims to conquer everything between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Yeah, there’s nothing Israel wants more than to be in charge of oodles of Arabs.

 

Since Israel, as we know, is tiny and the Arab world, as we also know, is immense, this particular bit of mishegas appears to be what Sigmund Freud would have called “projection.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:21 | link | comments

Solo performance: President Bush has struck his Faustian pact with Iran, concluding that it’s more important to try to placate the fascist theocrats so they won’t foment trouble in Iraq than it is to prevent the lit’ler Hitler from fulfilling his vow to wipe the Jewish blot off the map.

So once again the Jews stand alone.

 

Daniel Pipes looks at whether Israel has any chance of defending itself against an all-but-inevitable Shia nuke by lauching a pre-emptive strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities.  His conclusion: maybe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:58 | link | comments (1)

Songs sung blue: Okay, so I’m beginning to come to terms with the puzzling way David Chase wrapped up The Sopranos, but I will never, I repeat, never, forgive him for signing off with that cheesy Journey ballad “Don’t Stop Believing.”

Here are a few of the songs I would have far preferred, most of which date from the same era:

 

• “Three Little Birds”—Bob Marley. The lyrics “Don’t worry ‘bout a thing, ‘cause every little thing gonna be alright” would have allowed for a particularly ironic capper.

 

• “The Pretender”—Jackson Brown. The song title as well as the words “between the longing for love and the struggle for the legal tender”—although in Tony’s case, it was illegal tender—seem very a propos. I also like the line, “They say the end is a blink of an eye”—even though that’s far shorter than the five seconds of the black screen before they rolled the credits.

 

• “Desperado”—The Eagles. Fairly self-explanatory, I think.

 

• “Is That All There Is?”—Peggy Lee. Also self-explanatory.

 

• “Solsbury Hill”—Peter Gabriel. "My heart goin’ boom, boom, boom/"Son,” he said, “grab your things I’ve come to take you home.”" My heart was goin’ boom, boom, boom for almost the entire episode, and I thought for sure someone was comin' to take Tony "home."

 

• “Dust in the Wind”—Kansas. The most depressing ballad ever recorded (“All we are is dust in the wind”) and thus a good match for Tony’s frame of mind throughout the run of the show.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

The luncacy of the EU: After a brief and uncustomary interlude of rationality and morality, the EU, reverting to form, has decided to restart the flow of jizya to the Palestinian government, even though a regime of genocidal Islamists are still at the helm. From Islam Online:

RAMALLAH — The European Union resumed on Monday, June 11, financial aid payments directly to the Palestinian government for the first time since the West launched an economic boycott of the government more than a year ago.

"Minister of finance Dr Salam Fayyad and European Commission representative John Kjaer today signed a memorandum of understanding which relaunches European Union assistance to the ministry of finance," the European Commission said in a statement, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

The EU and the United States, the biggest donors to the Palestinians, have imposed a financial and political boycott on the Palestinians since the resistance movement Hamas rose to power in March 2006.

The EU policy shift was prompted by the formation of a Palestinian national unity government in March.

The EU foreign ministers, however, made clear that the euro bloc would engage with ministers of the new Palestinian cabinet, who are not members of Hamas and backed an Arab peace initiative with Israel.

Under the new agreement, four million euros will be paid in installments until June 2009 and training will be provided for the finance ministry employees.

"This support for the ministry... will help me ensure that we work in accordance with the best international standards, and that the government can give every Palestinian taxpayer the assurance that their money is being legally and honestly spent," Fayyad said in a statement.

Despite the freeze on direct aid, EU resumed aid in 2006 indirectly to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbass through a mechanism that avoided the Hamas-led government.

International relief agency Oxfam called in April for an immediate resumption of Western aid to the Palestinians, warning that the year-long boycott has sent the Palestinians deeper into poverty…

At the moment, “poverty” appears to be the least of their worries.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:45 | link | comments

Oren on Segev: Old-style Six Day War historian Michael B. Oren exposes the gaping holes (you could drive a tank through those suckers) in “new”—ie. revisionist—historian Tom Segev’s version of the Six Day War. From the Washington Post:

…Laboring to prove his point forces Segev not only to contradict himself but also to commit glaring oversights. The book repeatedly asserts that war might have been averted if Israel had accepted an American plan to break the Egyptian blockade by sending an international convoy through the Straits of Tiran. But the American plan, code-named Regatta, was rejected by Congress, as well as by 24 of the 26 nations invited to contribute to the convoy. Segev knows this fact but throughout the book pretends that a diplomatic option remained. Similarly, his need to demonstrate Israel's strength before the war compels him to overlook Soviet support for the Arab war effort and France's last-minute decision to back the Arabs. The French move is mentioned only at the end of the book and then -- bizarrely -- as one of the reasons that Israelis clung to their newly conquered territory.

But the most telling omission relates not to the Israelis or to any foreign power but rather to the Arabs. Segev's book is all but devoid of Arab calls for Israel's destruction and the slaughter of its citizens. There is no mention of pro-war demonstrations, of Egypt's willingness to use poison gas against its enemies, or of the detailed Arab plans for conquering Israel. Segev even ignores the Khartoum resolution after the war, in which the Arab states refused to negotiate with Israel and to grant it peace and recognition. These omissions inflict an injustice on the Arabs by treating them as two-dimensional props in a solipsistic Israeli drama…

No doubt that’s why, to mark the war’s 40^th anniversary, Ceeb Sunday Morning radio show host Michael Enright interviewed Segev and not Oren.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:23 | link | comments

A little learning is a dangerous thing, especially in the U.K.: You may as well abandon hope that there’s any chance the Brits will be able to rouse themselves from their Islamophilistinism and self-loathing long enough to realize that they are lurching inexorably toward their own demise. Here’s the kind of squishy, idiotic, lefto-fascist crapitude British moppets are being spoon-fed in schools these days. From the Daily Mail:

Government tinkering has torn the content out of the school curriculum in state schools and replaced it with politically correct dogma, a damning report by an influential think-tank warns today.

Civitas claims issues and knowledge vital to education have been junked in favour of trendy subjects and fashionable causes.  

No major subject area has escaped the battery of political interference which has left the system bruised and corrupted, the study claims.

The report, called 'The Corruption of the Curriculum', says an educational apartheid is opening up between state and private school pupils, who have not yielded to fad subjects.

It says: "The traditional subject areas have been hijacked to promote fashionable causes such as gender-awareness, the environment and anti-racism, while teachers are expected to help to achieve the Government's social goals instead of imparting a body of academic knowledge to their students."

The report was written for civitas by various academics and teachers including Chris McGovern, chairman of the History Curriculum Authority.

It says that in history, teenagers are being asked to write about the 9/11 outrage from the point of view of terrorists for part of a GCSE course.

In literature, the report claims a pupil can get top marks without knowing about the existence of past English greats such as Milton or Pope.

The drive for gender and race equality has also meant there is not a single Welsh or English poet from a list of modern poems from around the world.

In science, controversial reforms have had the opposite effect to that intended - by making fewer pupils interested in the subject.

The new science curriculum was introduced last September and replaced lab work and scientific probing with debates on abortion and nuclear power.

In geography, the study concludes, children are no longer taught facts about the world but how to be global citizens...

Oh, brother. And you thought Farfour Mouse was having a deleterious impact on impressionable young minds. From the sounds of it, Farfour could probably get a good job teaching school in the U.K.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:02 | link | comments

Life in the Magic Kingdom: What’s it like to live and work in an Islamist dystopia? This story in Arab News about the Kingdom’s religious enforcers (a.k.a. the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a.k.a. the national party-poopers) offers a snapshot:

RIYADH, 11 June 2007 — The president of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith, disputed yesterday the findings of the first human rights report by the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) regarding alleged violations by his organization.

 

In its report, the NSHR had said that commission members confiscated mobiles from those it detained and also pressured people to sign confessions in order to be released.

 

Al-Ghaith said that a commission member would not confiscate mobiles since they often contain personal and private information such as the names and phone numbers of family members. “That would be a religious and criminal offense,” he told Arab News. “Mobiles are only confiscated if they are part of the criminal offense.” He did not comment on the alleged forced confessions which the report mentioned.

 

He did say, however, that the request by the NSHR to rewrite Article 14 of the commission’s law would be studied. The rights body said the article is too broad and is thus open to misinterpretation.

 

Al-Ghaith said: “Just because the society (NSHR) requested that the article be changed does not necessarily mean we have to do so but we will study the matter. If we see that changing the article is for the best, then we will proceed.”

 

Speaking to the media after an emergency meeting with commission heads from the Kingdom’s 13 regions, Al-Ghaith said that the meeting was meant to “activate and not dilute” the efforts of the commission.

He denied that four Riyadh commission members had been fired for mishandling the case of Sulaiman Al-Huraisi, a Saudi citizen who died in commission custody two weeks ago when members who suspected alcohol was being consumed in his home raided his apartment.

 

Referring to two other cases involving alleged commission errors and wrongdoing in Riyadh and Tabuk, Al-Ghaith said: “Both cases are still under investigation.” He announced that the commission had hired a spokesman for the body at its headquarters. The spokesman is Ahmed Al-Jardan, a former public relations manager. Al-Ghaith also noted that every commission head in the Kingdom’s different regions is empowered to act as a spokesperson for the commission in his region.

 

He also announced that the commission had established a legal department to be known as the “Department of Rules and Regulations.” The new department is for consultation by commission members if they are unsure of something or need legal advice…

 

As thrilling as it must be to work for a totalitarian police force dedicated to the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice, one cannot even imagine the added excitement of working for something called the Department of Rules and Regulations. I’m sure employees can hardly wait to get to the office every day.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:55 | link | comments

Another (clueless) country heard from: The Dutch have stepped forward to say they want to play a central role in “resolving” the dispute between Israelis and Arabs. From Ha’aretz:

The Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen will visit Israel tomorrow, bringing the message to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the Hague wishes to play a more central role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Even before the minister's visit to the region began, however (today he will be in Egypt), it took an awkward turn, as 52 senior Dutch figures demanded on Saturday that their government recognize Hamas and "apply more pressure against Israel, to restore the international community's credibility."

 

Last week, former Dutch prime minister Dries Van Agt, who co-signed the petition, demanded that Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen "denounce not only attacks by Palestinians on Israelis, but also terrorist actions by the Israeli occupation army, which result in the death of so many Palestinians."

The signatories also include Hans van den Broek, who served as foreign minister for 11 years, before his appointment in 1993 as European commissioner for foreign relations. Both he and Van Agt belong to Verhagen's center-right ruling party, the CDA.

The petition appeared in several daily papers, and featured signatures of many other opinion shapers from across the political board. "The government must help break the impasse. With the Arab League," the petition read. In addition, the document included an implicit demand that Holland recognize Hamas: "The Netherlands must engage in dialogue with all the relevant parties."…

In keeping with this morning’s theme, I think you could say the Dutch made them “an offer they can refuse.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments

Gang warfare in Gaza: And speaking of whackings, Gaza’s rival gangs are continuing to make mincemeat of each other—and their fantasy of an independent “Palestine.”

Maybe its time to get Mahmoud Abbas out of harm’s way by offering to put him in the Witness Protection Program.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Heady times: Last night on the final episode of The Sopranos, Phil Leotardo had the misfortune to get whacked by one of Tony’s guys. And, to add insult to injury, his head was squashed like a ripe watermelon when, post-whacking, it was run over by an SUV.

And speaking of smashed heads, the MEMRI Blog has an entry about an Al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan bloviating in that faux-poetic language the jihadists seen to favour that “This summer will be…a sword that will crack your skulls open.”

 

Thanks for the heads up, big guy, but all I really want to know is WHAT THE HECK DID THE FIVE SECONDS OF BLACK SCREEN AT END OF THE SOPRANOS MEAN?!

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:07 | link | comments

Eye in the sky: Israel has just successfully launched a spy satellite. The satellite will allow the Jews to keep better tabs on the lit’ler Hitler and his nuclear ethnic cleansing program.

The launch inspired me to revamp a Police classic:

 

Every breath you take,

Every nuke you make,

Every sword you shake,

Every ‘cake you bake

We’ll be watchin’ you.

 

Every lie you lie.

Every alibi.

Every boast you fly.

Every taunt you try.

We’ll be watchin’ you.

 

You know it’s true

Jews are watching you.

They see much better—way,

Than Mo ElBaradei.

 

Every tactic tried

Every genocide.

Every ‘slamist feint

Every taint you taint

We’ll be watchin’ you.

We’ll be watchin’ you…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:38 | link | comments

Meat man a goner: Sad news for those who support 7^th Century thinking: Australia’s Grand Mufti, the man who said rape victims have it coming to them because unveiled women are like pieces of meat, has been pushed out. And not because his views had proven to be an embarrassment; oh, no. It’s just that his health is such that remaining in his current post wouldn’t have been, um, healthy. From Islam Online:

CAIRO — After holding the title for more than 18 years, Taj el-Din al-Hilali stepped down as Mufti of Australia and was replaced by Fehmi Naji El-Imam, considered by many as a multi-faith culture promoter, The Age daily reported on Sunday, June 10.

"We recognize the great services that Sheik Hilali has provided over the years and we pray for his good health," the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) said in a statement released Sunday.

In a four-hour, closed-door meeting of Muslim leaders at the Preston Mosque in suburban Melbourne Sunday, Hilali was reinstated as Mufti of Australia but he declined to accept, it added.

Egyptian-born Hilali, who has held the post since 1988, has suffered ill health and was admitted to hospital last October after collapsing with chest pain.

After a meeting on Sunday, March 25, in the Sydney suburb of Lakemba, Australian imams decided to reinstate al-Hilali as mufti despite government pressures to sack him.

They also decided to form a 15-member executive council to consult more widely about who should be the next mufti.

Hilali was the first choice for the Muslim leaders during their today's meeting but he declined to accept a new term in office.

Hilali had repeatedly made international headlines over controversial remarks that drew rebukes from the government, opposition and some sections of the Muslim community, estimated at 300,000 or 1.5 percent of the population.

Such controversies usually cloud other positive entries in his tenure.

In July 2005, he was named Muslim Man of the Year at the first Australian Muslim Achievement Awards by Mission of Hope…

And doesn’t Mission of Hope now have egg all over its collective faces?

 

Mind you, some folks are partial to steak and eggs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:08 | link | comments

Last Christian out of the Middle East, be sure to turn out the lights: The Toronto Star makes note of a disturbing trend: the dwindling number of Christians living in Arab countries. But of course, being utterly clueless, the Star’s Foreign Affairs reporter Olivia Ward fails to associate the dearth of Christians with the penchant for Islamic supremacism that threatens all dhimmis in the region, including the Jewish ones in Israel. To Olivia, it all seems to be something that’s happening as a matter of course—a “trend”—and not the result of any concerted oppression.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:09 | link | comments

Dicey destination? The travel section of the Sunday Telegraph has an article about Israel that attempts to answer what it refers to as “the holidaymaker’s dilemma,” to wit: should Brits be travelling to Israel?

Having been there recently, I, of course, would have no problem responding with a resounding “darn tootin’!” It’s apparent, though, that for some Brits, political and safety considerations may come into play:

Should you visit Israel? For some readers, this may be two questions. Is it safe, and, depending on your political outlook, should you be visiting at all?

For now, we will leave the second question aside, but we would like to hear your views on all aspects of travel to the country, as well as any tips or comments or observations from those who have visited the country in the past.

If you wish to contribute your thoughts, or join the debate, visit our message boards.

As regards safety, the best advice can be gleaned from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office website, which has regularly updated sections dedicated to travel advice by country (www.fco.gov.uk).

Its Israel account opens with the words: “Most visits to Israel are trouble-free,” but urges caution in all the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It advises against all but essential travel to the West Bank, Gaza (and close to the Gaza perimeter) and Lebanese border area, and “strongly advises you maintain a high level of vigilance when travelling anywhere in Jerusalem”, where the last attack resulting in the death of a foreign national was in 2002.

It also reminds visitors that nine British nationals have been killed inside the so-called “Green Line Israel” (within the perimeters from the 1949 armistice between Israel and Syria, Jordan and Egypt) since September 2000 – three by the Israeli Defence Forces, three by attacks inside Green Line Israel, and three by attacks on the OPT.

Oooo, scary. In that case, maybe nervous Brits should go somewhere safer. Like, say, Mexico or Kenya.