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

Don't they have any accurate history texts at Foggy Bottom?: Condi Rice compares Palestinians to blacks living under Jim Crow laws.

You should know something, Condi: it isn't always about you. To bone up on the subject, I suggest you read this.

And this.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:33 | link | comments (1)

Gee, ya think? Annapolis may be catastrophe for Israel, ex-official says.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:29 | link | comments

A fruitless plea: Times have changed and so has Great Britain. In the days when Britannia ruled the waves--or even when Maggie Thatcher was P.M.--the sight of a Brit imprisoned at the whim of demented Islamists would have occasioned a harsh and immediate response from the British government. These days, of course, Britain is a shadow of its former self, and prefers, whenever possible, to speak imploringly and wield a flaccid noodle (as it did when the Shias comandeered a British naval vessel two summers ago). Telegraph opiner Boris Johnson thus realizes there’s fat chance of the P.M. taking up a cudgel on Gillian Gibbons’ behalf, and is beseeching those who have some real power to make themselves useful:

…When the news broke yesterday teatime that poor Gillian Gibbons was facing prosecution in Khartoum for inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs, I am afraid my normal good humour momentarily deserted me.

How dare they! I spluttered, and for a brief undignified moment, I had fantasies of a return to the age of Palmerston.

Here is an innocent British citizen, a good and patently well-meaning 54-year-old British teacher. She has decided to make a new life for herself by giving instruction to children in one of the poorest countries on Earth. She has got herself into a muddle over the name of a teddy bear - and now she is facing 40 lashes or six months in jail.

There was a time when Britain would have sent a gunboat to rescue her. There was a time when MPs would have been holding furious debates on the matter, and bandying phrases such as "civis Britannicus sum".

In the old days there would have been démarche from Britain to Sudan, warning that His Majesty's government would not suffer a hair on her head to be disturbed.

Well, folks, that time is past. We must accept that the world has changed, and our place in the world has changed, too.

We must ask ourselves what earthly good we can do, and how we can persuade people to come to their senses. We need to encourage reasonable people in Sudan to get Gillian Gibbons out of jail as soon as possible and I have a feeling, alas, that there is not a lot to be gained by just quivering our jowls and invoking the spirit of Don Pacifico; or at least, not a lot that will help Gillian Gibbons.

Of course it is demented that this teacher should now have spent four nights in jail for calling a teddy bear Mohammed.

It is utterly bonkers that she should face the possibility of some barbaric punishment, for what was so obviously a complete misunderstanding.

She did what thousands of teachers do across Britain, and asked her class to come up with a name for their teddy bear mascot.

Her class, which included Muslim children, voted for the name of the prophet - which they themselves seem to have thought a pretty uncontentious choice, since millions of Muslim boys bear the same name.

She did not mean to imply that she thought the messenger of Allah was in any sense a cuddly toy. It simply did not cross her mind that there could be some idolatrous or blasphemous implication.

In so far as she caused offence to some of the parents, there must have been a thousand better ways to sort out the problem. She could have apologised; she could have instantly changed the name of the mascot to Paddington, or some other name less offensive to Muslims.

She could have called it Aloysius, like the chap in Evelyn Waugh, and though Aloysius is a pretty emetic name for a teddy bear, no one would have suggested locking her up.

She wasn't given the chance to do any of those sensible things, and the result is a mess; and it is worse than a diplomatic embarrassment. The jailing of Gillian Gibbons is helping to confirm people's worst prejudices about Islam.

It may be that the judge will simply spring her today, in which case all will be well. But if he doesn't, and if this business drags on, then there is one group that must speak up.

There's no point in the British government raging from afar, or rattling an empty scabbard. There's no point in us jumping up and down on the sidelines, and shaking our fists at Khartoum. Any such posturing would only help, of course, to deepen the intransigence of the Sudanese.

No, the voices we need to hear now belong to Britain's vast, sensible Muslim majority. If British Muslims speak up decisively and loudly against this lunacy, then they can achieve two good things at once. Their arguments will be heard with respect in Khartoum, since they cannot be said to be founded on any kind of cultural imperialism, or to be actuated by Islamophobia…

Who's he kidding? If Gillian has to depend on Britain’s vast, sensible Muslim majority to go to bat for her, the poor woman’s going to languish in a squalid, overcrowded, mosquito-infested Sudanese jail for a very long time.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:20 | link | comments

Existential sock: Think Jean-Paul Sartre, only stretchier.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:55 | link | comments

 This ain't no teddy bear's picnic: With the appropriate apologies:

If you go down to Khartoum today

You’re sure of a big surprise.

If you go down to Khartoum today

You better go in disguise.

For ev’ry loon with time on his hands

Has gathered there to heed some commands

To seethe and rave about a grave insult to Islam.

 

Seething time for Sudanese.

They all are so displeased

A teddy bear bears the Prophet’s name.

See them madly dash about.

They like to scream and shout

That Islam itself has been defamed.

Watch them wildly ranting, too.

Good thing Gill’s not a Jew,

Or she’d be a goner for sure.

For days and days their fury will rage unabated

‘Cause they’re crazed little jihadis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:45 | link | comments

The fine line between art and idiotic criminality: At “Combating Hatred,” the day-long gripe-fest put on for the grievance industry by Bay Street and other large corporations, a few of the speakers said they weren’t quite sure what “hate” was, but that they knew it when they saw it. (And some of them saw it in some mighty strange places—for example, in an opinion piece written by the National Post’s Jonathan Kay, who, oddly enough, was there as the conference’s token eee-vil conservative.)

The same observation, I believe, can be made about art: I don’t know what it is, but I know it when I see it.

This ain’t it (from the Globe and Mail):

A student at the Ontario College of Art and Design turned himself into police with his lawyer Thursday night after a multimedia bomb hoax at the Royal Ontario Museum on Wednesday night.

The 25-year-old allegedly made a fake bomb, along with an equally phony video posted on YouTube of the ROM blowing up, for a final project for his video class, police said.

"It would appear ... that it was, in my opinion, a misguided art project," Detective Constable Hector MacDonald said.

The ROM had to cancel a charity fundraiser and call in the bomb squad when a worker discovered the fake-bomb-in-a-bag - labelled "This is not a bomb." The online video was uploaded the same evening and relayed to news media outlets.

Jerkily shot with a hand-held camera and still on display yesterday, it depicts a smiling ROM visitor - possibly a genuine visitor whose recording was obtained by pranksters - who walks up to the entrance before disappearing from the screen with a bang, a flash and a chorus of shouts.

The fake bomb - which comprised three simulated pipe bombs wrapped in wire and a battery - was discovered by a security guard shortly after 6 p.m. outside the museum's Bloor Street entrance. It was shortly before more than 2,000 guests were due to arrive for the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research dinner, a $600-a-plate affair expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The dinner was cancelled, the Toronto police bomb squad arrived in force, along with its robot, and traffic was snarled around Bloor Street and rerouted for the next four hours.

The video, posted later in the evening, showed a simulated explosion and aftermath at the museum and similarly declared itself: "The fake bombing at the ROM, Toronto, 28.11.07."

In an interview with Torontoist.com yesterday, the man said he thought the disclosure notes he affixed to his project meant he wasn't breaking the law. He told the website the idea of the project was to show how context changes the meaning of a piece of art. In this case, something that is "quite clearly not dangerous, but when you put it in a different context the viewer recontextualizes it."

He has been suspended from OCAD for non-academic mischief. Two faculty members have also been suspended with pay, the college said in a statement.

The dinner will be rescheduled, likely in January, and much of the money being raised for CANFAR may still materialize, as corporate sponsors promised to honour their pledges.

The elaborate hoax nonetheless spelled a major disappointment. "This makes me feel very sad; it's quite a tragic event for the organization," said CANFAR executive director Elissa Beckett.

As to the video, there were no plans yesterday to remove it from public view. In general, videos that are neither pornographic nor unduly violent can get a free spot on the YouTube site, and there appears to be nothing illegal about airing footage of an explosion that never occurred.

Thorarinn Jonsson has been charged with common nuisance and mischief interfering with property.

Well, as long as there's "nothing illegal" about it...

If there’s any justice, Jonsson will get to do some “performance art” in prison with a hairy-backed cellmate named Spike.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:55 | link | comments (1)

"Squalid, overcrowded and infested with mosquitoes": A description from a satirical travel brochure of Sudan? Could be. But it also describes the jail cell where Islam-insulter Gillian Gibbons is set to serve her 15-day sentence--that is, if the seething crowd of the insulted doesn't get to her first.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:32 | link | comments (1)

“Science” in the Magic Kingdom: Who says the Wahhabis aren’t modern and up-to-date? Why, they’ve even gone and done one of those newfangled psychologimacal studies. Conducted by a noted expert in the fast-growing field of pilgrimage research, the study has revealed—now, hold onto your hats—that at least a portion of pickpockets who operate during Haj are there for the sole purpose of stealing!

I guess that’s why those psychologimacalists get the big bucks. From Arab News:

MAKKAH, 30 November 2007 — A recent study concludes that nearly a fourth of pickpocket crimes in the two holy cities are committed by people who are in the cities solely for the purpose of stealing from pilgrims or are pilgrims themselves who are supplementing their trips by theft.

The report, entitled “The Psychological and Social Impact Pickpockets Have on Pilgrims,” was the result of research by Mahmoud Kasnawi of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques’ Haj Research Institute with the aim of developing strategies to protect pilgrims from such crimes.

The study concluded that 17 percent of the pickpockets in and around the mosque complexes at Makkah and Madinah are there for the sole motive of stealing while 16.5 percent are the pilgrims themselves. The rest are opportunists that steal when the chances arise but aren’t pre-meditating these criminal acts.

The study also contends that 46.5 percent of the pickpockets arrested at the Grand Mosque in Makkah were Egyptians. About one in five people that have been arrested for pick-pocketing are women. About 14 percent of the pickpockets sleep in the Grand Mosque or on the pavements, bridges and tunnels, the study said.

The report underscored the need to minimize the sense of insecurity and loss of mental peace caused by the acts of pickpockets on the pilgrims.

Some gangs use children under the age of 15 to steal from pilgrims. Teenagers account for a third of the pickpockets.

Another finding of the study was that 10 percent of the pickpockets have been for Haj more than once, possibly encouraged to return because of the money they stole during the previous pilgrimage.

The study also said 84 percent of the arrested pickpockets were married while 67 percent of them had their family with them.

While 86 percent of the pickpockets traveled to the Kingdom on their private earnings, the remaining stole the money to pay for the travel expenses.

The study noted that most of the thefts take place close to Kaaba at the time of tawaf (circumambulation) to take advantage of the heavily crowded conditions and the fact that pilgrims often carry with them their valuables.

In other “scientific” news, pilgrims often get crushed to death because—stop me if you’ve heard this before—too many people are crammed into too small a space.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments (2)

Two of a kind: There’s an immense chasm, we’re told, between “secular” Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas and his “extremist” rival, Hamas. Said chasm provided the rationale for the Annapolis sit-down, since the “secularist,” unlike the “extremist,” is supposedly amenable to “solving” things in a reasonable way.

So much for that theory. From the Jerusalem Post:

Fatah will fight alongside Hamas if and when the IDF launches a military operation in the Gaza Strip, a senior Fatah official in Gaza City said Thursday.

"Fatah won't remain idle in the face of an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip," the official said. "We will definitely fight together with Hamas against the Israeli army. It's our duty to defend our people against the occupiers."

The Fatah official said his faction would place political differences aside and form a joint front against Israel if the IDF enters the Gaza Strip. "The homeland is more important than all our differences," he said.

The statements came amid reports that some Arab countries were planning to resume mediation efforts between Fatah and Hamas to avoid further deterioration in the aftermath of the Annapolis peace conference.

According to the reports, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have decided to invite representatives of Fatah and Hamas for talks on ways of ending their power struggle.

A senior Palestinian official who visited Cairo this week said the Egyptians and Saudis have reached the conclusion that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas won't be able to move forward with the peace talks with Israel without solving his problems with Hamas…

That’s the great thing about the Zionist entity. You can always count on it providing the incentive murderous Jew-haters need  to let bygones be bygones in pursuit of their larger goal.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes: David Horowitz poses the question, "Have academic radicals lost their minds?"

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

Wretched equivalence, in song: As the writer/composer of “Elders,” a musical based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I was heartened to hear that Canadian playwright Oren Safdie was assaying a cheeky musical take on the Israeli-Palestinian squabble. Alas, from the sounds of it, it’s another exercise in moral equivalence as purveyed by someone for whom there’s no right or wrong, only “nuance” and endless shades of grey. From the Ceeb (of course):

It’s fitting that Canadian playwright Oren Safdie should be opening a new musical satire called West Bank, U.K. in the very same week that saw another Middle East summit aimed at resolving the long, bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Safdie’s show, premiering Nov. 29 at New York’s La MaMa theatre, is a Mideast allegory with a sitcom premise. Assaf, an Israeli Jew, arrives at his apartment in London’s West Bank after a long absence to discover that Aziz, a Palestinian refugee, has taken over the lease. NYC, their American landlady, steps in as mediator, suggesting they resolve the situation by sharing the place. At first, the two roommates get along, but when Aziz’s fundamentalist Muslim uncle and Assaf’s Orthodox Jewish girlfriend show up, the cosy arrangement begins to fall apart. Before you know it, there’s a furniture barrier dividing the flat and suicide bombers at the door.

The Middle Eastern-style songs, by Safdie’s collaborator Ronnie Cohen, include outrageous comic riffs on the Jewish conspiracy theory and the 72 celestial virgins promised to Muslim martyrs. (“My wives will wait for me in heaven; / They’ll want my manhood 24/7.”) There are cracks about “kikes” and “camel jockeys” and jokes about blasphemous cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. It’s a far cry from the gentle, Canadian-style humour of Little Mosque on the Prairie and much closer to the raw racial comedy of Sacha Baron Cohen and Sarah Silverman.

Safdie admits he and Ronnie Cohen were a little nervous about handling such incendiary subjects. “There were certain moments, when we were writing things, when we wondered, ‘Can we do this? Can we say that? Are we going to get bomb threats?’”

But Safdie, who is also directing the show, found his fears allayed in rehearsals. “My barometer has really been the two actors who play the lead roles,” he says during a telephone interview from New York. His leading men are Jewish-American Jeremy Cohen, who portrays Assaf, and Arab-American Mike Mosallam, who plays Aziz.

“[Mike] is quite an activist in the Arab community here, to the point where he refuses to go out for any terrorist roles, which are probably 90 per cent of the roles for Middle Eastern actors these days,” Safdie says. “And the guy who plays Assaf [Cohen] is just back from Israel and is quite a Zionist. And they seem to be OK with everything in the play — there doesn’t seem to be any concern. Besides, it’s an equal-opportunity offender,” Safdie adds wryly. “One group can’t complain that we’re being unfair; there are little jabs at everybody.”

Not that Safdie is only interested in scoring satiric points. “I want to get into the psychology behind why these people, and these countries, act the way they do,” he says. “For example, if the Israeli seems to jump to conclusions and is a little bit more defensive, it’s because of his history. And it’s like that hopefully for every character — we understand why they’re acting a certain way. I think that takes away the idea that there is a right or wrong; it’s more about how people behave certain ways because this is the way they are.”...

Here’s a heads-up for you, Oren. The reason the Palestinians act the way they do is because they want the Jews to am-scray. The reason Israelis behave the way they do is that some of them at least still think they have a right to stay, even though it—what’s that popular expression the kids like to use?—oh, yeah, “insults Islam.”

In “honour” of Oren, I am reposting one of the songs from “Elders.” It’s a take-off of a song from the Sondheim show, Sweeney Todd, a production of which was recently staged in my hometown. Sung by two of the Elders, the song deals with the age old canard that the “chosen” have a cannabalistic penchant for draining the blood of juicy young Gentiles to add piquancy to festival baked goods:

Holiday Pastry

 

There's nothing that is quite as tasty

As a little blood in your holiday pastry

A little blood in your holiday pastry

Makes it taste divine.

Mix it up with eggs and flour

Eat it hour after hour

It is what gives us the power

For our evil crime.

 

Have some Persian?

No, I’ve an aversion.

 

A little Moroccan?

Now you’re talkin’!

 

A morsel of Kurd?

Don’t be absurd.

 

A bisssel Chechan?

Makes me wretchan.

 

Some Sudanese?

Makes me sneeze.

 

A hot piece from Libya?

I’ll wear a bibya.

 

Something from Qatar?

Spread it like butter.

 

How ‘bout  some Syrian?

No, gives me delirium.

 

A drop from Dubai?

I’ll give it a try.

 

Some Abu Dhabi?

Did you bring the wasabi?

 

Azerbaijani?

Too much money.

 

Try my Malaysian?

Not my persuasion.

 

Any Jordanian?

I wouldn’t complainian.

 

Care for Somali?

Too hard to swalli.

 

Some Lebanese?

With couscous, please.

 

Turkish Delight?

Thank, not tonight.

 

A little Iraqi?

Well, just for a snaqi.

 

There’s nothing that is quite so yummy

As a little blood to fill your tummy,

A little blood to fill your tummy,

And your satisfaction grows.

 

Don’t be deceived by the Torah’s taboos

After all, we are the Jews

And we can have blood if we bloody-well choose,

As ev’ry Jew-hater knows.

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

Judenhass on campus: It has come to this—Jewish students on the campus of Toronto’s York University were forced to flee from an angry mob. From the Jewish Tribune:

TORONTO  – York University saw the worst antisemitic display ever on that campus last week, said Ben Feferman, senior campus coordinator for the Canadian region of Hasbara Fellowships, an Israel advocacy organization spearheaded by Aish Hatorah.

The Betar-supported Campus Coalition of Zionists (CCZ), together with Hasbarah, manned a table in Vari Hall, with permission from the university, with pamphlets and brochures about the danger emanating from Iran.

However, the situation became very difficult for the students who participated. They were vastly outnumbered by pro-Arab students who surrounded them, and eventually the pro-Israel activists fled. As they left, there was cheering by the pro-Arab mob.

According to Feferman, “I’ve never seen anything like this at York. We weren’t even discussing the issues anymore. It was pure Jew hatred. That’s what it’s come to.”
In fact, Feferman noticed an acquaintance there and said hello, but received no acknowledgement. She emailed him later that day to apologize, explaining that she didn’t want everyone to know she was Jewish. To Feferman, this episode is a red light. “We know there’s a crisis when a student on campus is afraid to reveal she’s Jewish and feels unsafe,” he said.

Another disturbing issue that day, according to Feferman, was that a Hillel executive was standing nearby, watching. Feferman can’t understand why he didn’t take action or get his students to help out.

When asked why they didn’t offer to support Hasbarah and CCZ, Tilly Shames, associate director, Hillel of Greater Toronto, did not answer the question directly referencing a program Hillel had held previously that experienced no protest.

Shames said, “Hillel @ York ran an extremely successful Israel program in a very public space (Vari Hall) on campus last Thursday. The Israel program was received positively and embraced by the student body. Hillel experienced no protest for running a public Israel program.”

“This is one of the first issues we’ve moved forward with in a pro-advocacy way, rather than being put in a reactive situation later on,” said Orna Hollander, executive director of Betar Canada.

The following day, Palestinian Media Watch’s Itamar Marcus addressed York students on the daily indoctrination of children living under the Palestinian Authority to hate Jews.
“It was absolute chaos,” Hollander declared. “It was impossible to moderate. People would ask loaded questions. Marcus wasn’t given an opportunity to respond. He refused to get into a screaming match. One girl, raised in Canada, said she herself would gladly be a suicide bomber and would have no qualms raising her daughter to become a shahid.”

A couple of weeks ago, when US-based anti-Israel professor of linguistics Noam Chomski was scheduled to address York students via satellite, CCZ and Hasbarah joined forces to provide information about what Chomski stands for.

“We wanted to do a protest,” Feferman said, “but the university administration wouldn’t allow it, saying they didn’t want a lot of noise and they were afraid that signs could be used as weapons.” The students settled for a table with handouts about Chomsky and two large posters, one depicting Chomsky with [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah. One poster quoted Chomsky’s statement: “I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even in denial of the Holocaust.”

The event was successful in providing information, Feferman said. “Over the course of four hours, a few hundred people came by. About half of them were moderate people who said they had heard about Chomsky in their English class and didn’t know he had these views. The other half were people who condemned Israel and insisted Hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization. At one point they came together and surrounded us, argued about issues and blamed America and Israel. We had good security, including non-uniformed security guards. We succeeded in raising awareness of Chomsky’s worldviews, although at times it was confrontational. We’re now organizing a protest for the Finkelstein event at U of T on Thursday.”

Hasbarah and CCZ are making plans to launch a presence at Ryerson University, where the vice-president of the student union has made several unsuccessful attempts in recent months to impose a boycott, divestment and sanctions motion against Israel and has organized a number of anti-Israel programs on campus.

(Last week, when a couple of Ryerson Student Union leaders tried to introduce a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel at the annual congress of the Canadian Federation of Students, more than two-thirds of the voting plenary rejected the call. B’nai Brith had called on the Federation to reject categorically the boycott proposal.)

“Two [Ryerson] students in the past few weeks called me and said they need help doing something,” Feferman said. “We’re going to try to find the students there and hope to start advocating properly on campus.”

After the anti-Jewish near-rioting at York last week, one student representing the “Independent Body and Advocates of Peace and Humanity,” handed out flyers stating its opposition to any comparison of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmanidejad with Hitler and claiming that CCZ was marginalizing Iranians by attacking Iran’s leader. It should be noted that the same students who resent any criticism of Ahmanidejad and worry about a negative impact on Iranian students are active proponents of anti-Israel activity.

“Freedom of speech is only for them,” Feferman said. “The right to censure a country’s leader is only for them.”…

Just like in Nazi Germany, way back when.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:08 | link | comments

Déjà vu: The international Jewish conspiracy, a.k.a. "The Lobby,” has been getting busy again. When it isn’t pulling the levers of power in Washington (see the Mearslimer diatribe) it’s throwing its weight behind a Jewish quadroon in France. From the Telegraph:

An Algerian minister threatened to ignite a diplomatic row by claiming that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, owed his election to "the Jewish lobby".

Mohamed Cherif Abbés, the minister of war veterans, insinuated that Mr Sarkozy, whose grandfather was of Greek-Jewish origin, was an agent of Israel. "You know the origins of the French president and those of who brought him to power," Mr Abbés told an Algerian newspaper.

He said Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister, had joined Mr Sarkozy's government because he had Jewish roots. "It was the result of a movement that reflects the will of the real architects of Mr Sarkozy's accession to power - the Jewish lobby that has a monopoly on industry in France," he said.

Mr Sarkozy is due in Algeria next month for talks with Abdelaziz Bouteflika, his counterpart, and hopes to win contracts to build nuclear power stations. The French foreign ministry said the remarks were contrary to good relations.

La plus ca change…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments (3)

 Care bear: A Globe and Mail editorial condemns the ursine lunacy in Sudan:

A soft toy is alleged to be the West's latest weapon in the clash of civilizations.

British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons has been charged with insulting Islam and inciting religious hatred and could face flogging or jail in Sudan over a class project that went horribly awry. The teacher asked her seven-year-old students at a private school in Khartoum to name a teddy bear. Unsurprisingly at the largely Muslim school, Mohammed was the winning choice. Each student then took Mohammed home for a weekend and was asked to keep a diary of the toy's activities. It is hard to view the assignment as anything worse than an act of cultural naiveté on Ms. Gibbons's part.

But when word that a stuffie had been named after Islam's Prophet leaked out, Islamic leaders, who might have been expected to dispense mercy in the name of the Merciful, reacted disgracefully, seizing on the excuse to provoke jihadist sentiment. A leading organization of the clerics issued a statement alleging Ms. Gibbons's purported blasphemy was not the product of ignorance but a "calculated action" undertaken by those "plotting against Islam." The 54-year-old Ms. Gibbons, a primary teacher from Liverpool who has been in Sudan half a year, hardly fits the mould of a crusader.

The offence against Islam was not Ms. Gibbons's. It was committed by the clerics baying for her blood over a transparently innocent act.

Hear, hear. But you wouldn’t think, in this day and age, you’d have to point that out.

Thus does sharia in an Islamist backwater have an impact far beyond its borders.

My letter to the Globe:

One has grown used in recent times to hearing about perceived “insults” to Islam and the over-the-top reaction they often incur in the “insulted.”  For the life of me, though, I can’t fathom the Khartoum teddy bear kafuffle.

They’re flipping out because a school teacher named the class stuffie Mohammed?

Seems to me that, since teddies are furry, appealing and adorable, that’s actually a compliment, not an insult.

Update: Mohammed the teddy pleads his case (via the appropriate Elvis tune):

Imams, let me be

Their lovin’ teddy bear.

Call me Mo,

Take me home.

Give me hugs to spare.

Oh, let me be

(Oh, let him be)

Their teddy bear.

 

I don’t wanna be insultin’

‘Cause insults make you burn.

I don’t wanna cause no floggin’

Even tho' you

Think that teacher has to learn.

Just wanna be

(Just wanna be)

Their teddy bear.

Can’t you see

No blasphemy

Has happened anywhere?

Oh, let me be

(Oh, let him be)

Their teddy bear.

 

Imams, let me be

The stuffie in the school.

Take a pill.

Try to chill.

And please, now,

Don’t be cruel.

Oh, let me be

(Oh, let him be)

Their teddy bear.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:10 | link | comments (2)

Et tu, V.C.?: The betrayals seem to be coming fast and furious these days. First, George and Condi force Israel to participate in a latter-day Wannsee Conference (only this time around, the Jews get to sit down with the Nazis and help plan their own genocide). Now there’s word that a high-level Vatican official is endorsing the Palestinian “right of return”—essentially, something the Arabs cooked up to ensure Israel’s demise through the weapon of overwhelming demographics. From Ha’aretz:

A senior Vatican cardinal said on Wednesday that all Palestinian refugees had a right to return to their homeland.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican department that formulates refugee policy, made the comment as U.S. President George W. Bush was set to revive long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at a White House summit.

"Palestinian refugees, like all other refugees, have a right to right to return to their homeland," Martino said in response to a question about the 44-nation conference in Annapolis on Tuesday.

 

Martino did not make clear whether he meant refugees had a right to return to homes in what is now Israel or to an eventual Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have
pledged to try to forge a peace treaty by the end of 2008 that would create a Palestinian state.

The issue of the return of Palestinian refugees, along with the status of Jerusalem, is one of the most sticky issues in a peace treaty.

There are some 4.5 million Palestinian refugees in camps in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Successive Israeli governments have made clear they will not accept the right of return of Palestinians who left homes in what is now Israel, saying it would threaten the country's existence.

Some ministers have said that some Palestinians might be allowed to settle in Israel on humanitarian grounds if a final peace settlement is reached.

The Vatican, which sent a delegation to Annapolis, supports a Palestinian homeland as well Israel's right to exist in security.

Um, scuzi, your eminence, but how is Israel supposed to “exist in security” if some 4.5 million Palestinians are allowed their “right” to enter its borders and smother it to death?

Now, it could be that this senior Cardinal was speaking on the fly and that his statement doesn’t reflect official Vatican policy. If so, the Pope will no doubt clarify the matter a.s.a.p.

And if he doesn’t, his silence will speak volumes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:37 | link | comments

More Tom foolery: It’s been several years since NYT pundit di tutti pundits Thomas L. Friedman endeavoured to float the lead balloon of a Saudi “peace” plan. The credulous columnist did so at the behest of the Wahhabis—who could spot a clueless wishful thinker from miles away. In today’s paper, TLF demonstrates that the ensuing years haven't brought even a scintilla more wisdom:

The Middle East is experiencing something we haven’t seen in a long, long time: moderates getting their act together a little, taking tentative stands and pushing back on the bad guys. If all that sounds kind of, sort of, maybe, qualified, well ... it is. But in a region in which extremists go all the way and the moderates usually just go away, it’s the first good news in years — an oasis in a desert of despair.

The only problem is that this tentative march of the moderates — which got a useful boost here with the Annapolis peace gathering — is driven largely by fear, not by any shared vision of a region where Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Jew, trade, interact, collaborate and compromise in the way that countries in Southeast Asia have learned to do for their mutual benefit.

So far, “this is the peace of the afraid,” said Hisham Melhem, Washington bureau chief of Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel.

Fear can be a potent motivator. Fear of Al Qaeda running their lives finally got the Sunni tribes of Iraq to rise up against the pro-Al Qaeda Sunnis, even to the point of siding with the Americans. Fear of Shiite thugs in the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army has prompted many more Shiites in Iraq to side with the pro-U.S. Iraqi government and army. Fear of a Hamas takeover has driven Fatah into a tighter working relationship with Israel. And fear of spreading Iranian influence has all the Arab states — particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan — working in even closer coordination with America and in tacit cooperation with Israel. Fear of Fatah collapsing, and of Israel inheriting responsibility for the West Bank’s Palestinian population forever, has brought Israel back to Washington’s negotiating table. Fear of isolation even brought Syria here.

But fear of predators can only take you so far. To build a durable peace, it takes a shared agenda, a willingness by moderates to work together to support one another and help each other beat back the extremists in each camp. It takes something that has been sorely lacking since the deaths of Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein: a certain moral courage to do something “surprising.”

Since 2000, the only people who have surprised us are the bad guys. Each week they have surprised us with new ways and places to kill people. The moderates, by contrast, have been surprise-free — until the Sunni tribes in Iraq took on Al Qaeda. What I’ll be looking for in the coming months is whether the moderates can surprise each other and surprise the extremists.

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, announced even before he got to Annapolis that there would be no handshakes with any Israelis. Too bad. A handshake alone is not going to get Israel to give back the West Bank. But a surprising gesture of humanity, like a simple handshake from a Saudi leader to an Israeli leader, would actually go a long way toward convincing Israelis that there is something new here, that it’s not just about the Arabs being afraid of Iran, but that they’re actually willing to coexist with Israel. Ditto Israel. Why not surprise Palestinians with a generous gesture on prisoners or roadblocks? Has the stingy old way worked so well?...

“Stingy”?! You call releasing hundreds of jihadis bent on your destruction “stingy”? What’s your idea of “generous,” Tom? Opening the cell doors and letting out the whole damned lot of them?

As for the idea that Rabin and Arafat displayed “moral courage”—‘tis to laugh. The only thing Rabin displayed was a refusal to see things clearly—a refusal that resulted in thousands of deaths, including, ironically, his own. And the only thing Arafat displayed was a shrewdness far greater that his enemies’; when they handed him another opportunity to become powerful and siphon off lots of aid money earmarked for his people into his own personal bank accounts, who was he to balk at such a sweet, no-strings-attached deal?

But how’s this for a “surprising” gesture: the President stops trying to burnish his legacy/pander to the oily Sheiks/get Arab Sunnis to form a common front against Iranian Shias, or whatever the heck it is he’s doing, and publicly acknowledges that until such time as Muslims shun the doctrine of Islamic supremacy, no infidel anywhere in the world will be safe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:36 | link | comments

Prescient Marxist: As a tormented Utopian once observed, history occurs twice. First time around, it’s a tragedy. Second time around, it’s a farce.

That isn’t to say, though, that out of this farce, a tragedy on the scale of the Shoah couldn’t arise.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:04 | link | comments

Today on the Ceeb: On Ceeb radio show The Current, host Anna Maria Tremonti is delving into the following stories:

With violence once again sweeping the suburbs around Paris, we'll get an update on the situation and look at why these neighbourhoods are so prone to violent confrontations with authorities.

And we'll have a feature interview with the person behind "Shooting Back," a project that involves putting video cameras in the hands of Palestinian civilians in order to document what happens to them.

Meanwhile, on tonight’s episode of  Little Mosque on the Prairie, Ceeb TV’s fantasy sitcom about funny Muslims and silly infidels sharing space in a small Saskatchewan town, “Baber runs afoul of a little-known Muslim concept: the evil eye. Is his run of bad luck the will of God? Or his own fault?...”

That’s the Ceeb for you. Day after day, reality and fantasy have become little more than a hard-leftist farrago of “harmless” Muslims and “oppressive,” “agresssive,” and “bloody-minded” Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:47 | link | comments

More evidence that the left is out to lunch: A Guardian pundit gives kudos to quisling Milquetoast Olmert for being the first Israeli leader to acknowledge Palestinian “pain and suffering”:

It's not news that the key players at the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis are three men united by weakness. George Bush is in his last year with opinion poll ratings somewhere around his ankles, Ehud Olmert's numbers are not much better while Mahmoud Abbas is a president who rules only half his people. That said, strength and weakness are relative qualities - some are weaker than others.

The evidence for that came in the contrast in the speeches delivered by the two antagonists. Ehud Olmert included a remarkable passage about Palestinian suffering: "For dozens of years, many Palestinians have been living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation. I know that this pain and deprivation is one of the deepest foundations which fomented the ethos of hatred towards us."

No Israeli prime minister has ever spoken of the Palestinian refugee experience in such terms before. Golda Meir denied there was even a Palestinian people. But now Olmert has come close to recognising the experience that lies at the heart of Palestinian national identity. To speak of Palestinian refugees "disconnected from the environment in which they grew" is to acknowledge that their roots lie elsewhere - in lands from which they were dispossessed and which are now Israel.

This may sound like a statement of the obvious to the rest of the world, but for an Israeli leader to say as much is significant. It marks a step away from the denial of historic reality which has for so long been a feature of official Israeli discourse…

No it doesn’t. It betokens a crippling moral solipsism to which Jews have historically been prone, and marks a perilous move away from acknowledging the historical reality of Arab rejectionism. That, and not Palestinian “pain and suffering”—which, after all, is mostly the fault of the Palestinians, the other Arabs and the UN—is the source of the irresolvable “problem.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:22 | link | comments

Bush fails the moral test: It’s hard to decide what’s more sickening—the rapturous reception the gullible mainstream media have according the Annapolis charade, or the charade itself.

After reading this piece in FrontPage Magazine by P. David Hornik, I’m giving the charade the slight edge:

“For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder, and rape of innocent civilians. My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide.”

 

So said President Bush in a speech last May 29. At the end of the speech he said: “I call on President Bashir to stop his obstruction, and to allow the peacekeepers in, and to end the campaign of violence that continues to target innocent men, women and children. And I promise this to the people of Darfur: The United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world.”

Just last November 1, in a message to Congress on the “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Sudan,” he wrote: “Because the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency [originally declared by President Clinton in 1997] must continue in effect beyond November 3, 2007.”

It was strange, then, to find in attendance at the Annapolis conference on Tuesday one John Ukec, ambassador to the U.S. from Sudan. In other words, among the invitees of a purported peace conference was a representative of a regime that the convener of the gathering himself, George Bush, had openly accused of genocide.

Sudan’s presence, though, wasn’t totally inappropriate to the morally upside-down world of the conference, which pitted a lone democracy, Israel, against the dictatorial-anarchic Palestinian Authority backed by a supporting cast of nine other Arab dictatorships of which Sudan was only the most egregious, along with the Arab League and the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference only a handful of whose countries could loosely qualify as democracies.

Moral inversion was well manifested in the Israeli-Palestinian “joint statement”—pursued like a sacred elixir for months by Secretary of State Rice and finally read out by Bush at the start of the conference—in which the sides “express our determination to . . . confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.”

With those words Israel—a democracy struggling against sixty years of violent aggression that does not engage in terrorism or incitement any more than Finland or Iceland—trashed its achievements, its identity, its Jewish heritage, and equated itself with one of the most terroristic and incitement-ridden societies of all time…

The Jews took a wisp of land that was mostly desert and, against all odds and in defiance of nearly every expectation, turned it into a vibrant, successful, thriving nation. The Arabs, with immense tracts of lands and vastly more natural resources, preside over failed, barely-functioning despotic swamps, into which the Americans have sunk untold gazillions just so they don’t fall into the hands of jihadis. And yet the Bush administration is determined to punish the successful and reward and further empower the losers—who, by the way, will continue to hate his guts long after Annapolis has become a distant memory.

Just goes to show that a Bush spawn may attend to forge a bold and principled path vis a vis the Jews, but when push comes to shove, he is bound to revert to the Bush père default setting—love the Saudis and, in the immortal words of Bush I factotum Jimbo Baker, f**k  the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:39 | link | comments

Toxic recipe: Globe and Mail scribe Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon describes the situation on the ground in the wake of the Annapolis launch:

…On the ground, there were few signs that peace was near. At least seven Palestinians have been killed in clashes with the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip since the summit began Monday. All the dead were believed to be Hamas members.

Israel's army and air force carry out regular strikes inside Hamas-controlled Gaza, usually in response to rocket fire directed at nearby Israeli cities. Four homemade Qassam rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel yesterday, doing little physical damage.

Ah, yes. Those “homemade” rockets.  Cooked up with tender loving care by Palestinian housewives in their E-Z Bake rocket ovens. And nothin’ says lovin’ like somethin’ from the oven…

Or, at least, those are some of the associations those using the word “homemade” would have you dredge up from your subconscious.

My letter to the Globe suggests that “homemade” is a particularly inapt way to refer to Qassams.

Could we not resolve to retire the word “homemade” as a way to describe Qassam rockets—the ones Palestinians in Gaza have continually hurled into Israel? Such a description imparts a positive connotation—cookies baking in the oven—to deadly weapons that do, in fact, destroy and kill.  The adjective also wrongly suggests that there’s an unfair imbalance here: Israel has the advantage of sophisticated weaponry while Hamas has to resort to building makeshift rockets from do-it-yourself kits that they whip up at home.

Qassams may not be the most complicated devices, but they are not the product of home hobbyists. They are manufactured in industrial areas of Gaza, or made in Egypt and smuggled across the porous Egypt-Gaza border.

It is a cruel insult to the citizens of Sderot, the Israeli town that has borne the brunt of—and suffered so much from—Qassam rocket attacks, to describe such a negative, destructive weapon in such a pleasant, positive way.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

NJB in E.Y.: Nice Jewish Boy Jerry Seinfeld dropped by Eretz Yisroel the other day to promote his bee flick, Bee Movie (“B” movie—get it?). While there, he had a chance to trade quips with one of Israel’s most clueless political figures. From israelinsider:

Comedian, actor and scriptwriter Jerry Seinfeld suited up like a nice Jewish boy to visit the President, the Prime Minister (wearing a casual sweatshirt, and various tourist sites.

He arrived Thursday to promote his animated film Bee Movie, which he co-wrote, co-produced and stars in (his voice at least). Israel is Seinfeld's first stop on a world tour to promote it.

On Friday, Seinfeld toured Yad Vashem -- Israel's memorial to the six million Jews slaughtered in the Shoah [Holocaust], Jerusalem's Old City and Masada. He met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Shimon Peres. He told Peres that he was excited by the warm welcome he got in Israel, and astounded by how popular his sitcom, "Seinfeld," -- still being re-run a dozen times a day on cable -- is in this country.

"You can imagine how much people like you here and respect you," Peres told Seinfeld as the two sat in suits and ties in front of Israeli flags at Beit Hanassi.

Seinfeld explained the idea of his movie to the 84-year-old Nobel peace laureate. "It's about a bee who's not sure that he wants to go into honey," Seinfeld said, as Peres laughed. "They tell him he has no choice."…

Which, funnily enough, describes the situation  of the Jews at Annapolis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:03 | link | comments

Hilarious!: Satirical blogger iowahawk on the recent spate of Hollywood floperoos. (hat tip Bobblehead:

Los Angeles - Despite critical acclaim and massive promotional budgets, a wave of anti-Santa holiday pictures floundered at the box office over the Thanksgiving opening weekend, leading some entertainment industry analysts to question whether Hollywood had overestimated the American public's loathing for the Claus administration and a seemingly endless shopping season.

"I'm not sure went wrong," said Jeff Bell of the MPAA after the release of the weekend Nielsen/EDI movie box office figures. "With all the griping you hear about the holidays, it stood to reason that people would flock to theaters for a chance to vent their hatred at that fat red fascist bastard. I blame illegal downloaders."

Whatever the reason, the financial results were grim.

"Kringle's  List," starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Julia Roberts in a cautionary tale of rogue elf agents inside the North Pole's illegal Naughty and Nice wiretapping operation, led the pack of anti-Claus releases with weekend receipts of $68,500, for a $26 per-screen average. The film's take was only good for a #34 showing overall, just behind the limited arthouse re-release of the 1965 Don Knotts classic "The Incredible Mr. Limpet," but studio spokesman Rob Foulet said the film could eventually recoup its $180 million production budget through strong word-of-mouth and a new advertising campaign that downplays the film's elfin geopolitical psychodrama in favor of Miss Roberts' breasts.

"We're not saying she has a nude scene in the film, but we're not saying she doesn't," said Foulet. "That's up to the ticket buyers to find out."

A similar fate befell "In the Valley of Elves," TriStar's $80 million claymation remake of the 1964 Rankin-Bass classic "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." With an all-star cast including Tommy Lee Jones as Dasher, a reindeer father haunted when his naive red-nosed son Rudolph (Ryan Phillipe) volunteers for a dangerous rooftop mission only to be killed by Santa (Javier Bardem) in a friendly fireplace incident, the film's strong Oscar buzz was expected to carry it to a big opening weekend. Instead, the fog-of-Christmas-Eve drama could only muster $24,813 from 2,505 screens. One Tri-Star executive blamed the disappointing receipts in part on the the film's R rating and controversial interspecies gay love scene between Rudolph and Herbie (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young elf who undergoes a sexual and dentisty awakening.

Star power was also unable to save Sundance Films' "Dialog On 34th Street," Writer/ Producer/ Director/ Star/ Costume Designer/ Makeup Artist Robert Redford's take on the Christmas quagmire. Just last month the film had a triumphant debut for Redford at Redford's prestigious Sundance Film Festival, where it brought home Best Picture and earned Redford the Golden Redford for his portrayal of a young, gauzily-lit rugged dissident intellectual cowboy filmmaker who exposes the lies told by a department store Santa Claus (Tom Cruise) to a cynical 7-year old girl (Meryl Streep). During its national weekend opening, however, it was only able to generate $7,425 in tickets sales, a figure which some industry analyst said would not cover the film's advertising budget, let alone the CGI and spackle cost for Mr. Redford's closeup scenes. The film may have also suffered from lukewarm reviews that faulted its overly cerebral tone, and 68-minute laptop dialog between Cruise and Streep.

Faring even worse was "The Midnight Polar Express," Searchlight's $250 million computer animation tale starring Reese Witherspoon as a mother whose children are falsely accused of naughtiness, abducted to the North Pole on a magical rendition train, and taken to Chrismo Island where they are iceboarded by a sadistic Santa's Helper (Sean Penn). Its five-day weekend take was an anemic $3216, or $1.47 per screen. While clearly disappointed in the results, Searchlight studio spokeswoman Renee Sachs said that the film would make up some of the shortfall through merchandising tie-ins, like the new MPE torture toy Happy Meal at McDonalds.

"Collect all six!" said Sachs.

The most controversial of the new releases, Brian De Palma's "Red on Green," also proved to be the weekend's biggest financial disappointment. The film's documentary-style depiction of brutal gang rapes, genital torture, and candy cane stabbings by North Pole workers earned critical raves and a Palm d'Or award for De Palma when it debuted at the Cannes Film Festival earlier in the year, but the positive advanced notices were not enough to fill theater seats. According to Nielsen/EDI the film generated only $18.00 in box office receipts -- apparently two tickets sold to DePalma and producer Mark Cuban -- and was later revised downward to $9.00 after Cuban asked for a refund. 

De Palma defended the film's weak opening box office, noting that it was based on only 15 screens in New York, Los Angeles, and Pyongyang.

"I think it'll really break out when we open in Dallas," said De Palma. "We're giving away free Dirk Nowitzki posters to the first 500,000 ticket buyers!"

"I have a Palm d'Or award," added De Palma…

That and a buck fifty won't even get you a skinny Mochacchino at an L.A. Starbucks, Bri.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:46 | link | comments

Easily gulled; thick as a brick: Melanie Phillips reports on the astounding credulousness/cluelessness of the British media:

The British media is reporting the Annapolis meeting with an absolutely stupefying degree of ignorance and blindness. The story pretty well agreed by one and all is that this meeting has the ingredients for a major breakthrough, because never before have the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships been so ripe for compromise and agreement; and yet it is likely to be yet another tragically missed opportunity, because both Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas are weak leaders who are unable to take their people with them.

The truth, as I have been repeatedly saying, is very different. America is putting Israel under enormous pressure to accept conditions which would entail its destruction. As a result, it is strengthening the mortal enemies not just of Israel but of the free world, against which they are currently at war. America is congratulating itself for having brought these rogue states to Annapolis because it thinks this augurs a breakthrough in their recognition of Israel and the beginning of an alliance against Iran. On the contrary, it means instead that these rogue states understand that America is offering them the means to weaken and ultimately destroy Israel — and thus in turn dramatically weaken the west. For these purposes, Iran is an irrelevance (except for the presence at Annapolis of Syria, through which its patron Iran will actually be strengthened). Such is the criminal stupidity of an America that has fallen under the catastrophic sway of the Baker-Hamilton 'new realist' doctrine, which holds that engaging with the mortal enemies of civilisation weakens them and strengthens those defending civilisation. It does not. It strengthens those enemies and weakens their designated victims.

None of this, of course, is reflected in the degraded British coverage, which is focused narrowly upon the Israel/Palestinian impasse and underpinned by a belief that Israel is the problem because of its fundamental illegiitmacy -- a belief based on profound historical ignorance…

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:25 | link | comments

A lotta “intifada”: As predicted, the seething has begun. From the times online:

Abu Haroon, a black-clad, bearded militant spent Monday, as he spends many days, trying to fire rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Yesterday, though, he took the day off.

“We have orders not to fire any rockets on Tuesday, because of the Annapolis summit,” he said. But there was a rider. “We can resume normal activities after the summit ends.”

Across the region, Palestinians and Israelis marked the historic gathering of their leaders on the Maryland coast with a mixture of controlled fury and calculated indifference.

Chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” filled the streets of Gaza City, as tens of thousands protested against the summit. The Islamist group Hamas organised the rally to emphasise that Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Palestinian President, does not speak for the entire Palestinian population. Hamas seized control of Gaza last June after routing Fatah forces loyal to Mr Abbas, and the President’s lack of control of Gaza has raised questions about his ability to carry out a future peace deal.

In the West Bank, where Mr Abbas holds sway, hundreds defied a ban on anti-Annapolis rallies to attend protests held by small Islamist groups. One man was killed by Mr Abbas’s security forces and nearly fifteen were injured, according to local medics.

“I did not authorise [President Abbas] to speak for me. I did not authorise him to give up a single piece of my land. He should be working to lift the suffering of the Palestinian people and to bring unity back to the people instead of fooling around with the Israelis,” said Mahmoud Abd-el-Kadr, a 40-year-old bus driver who attended the protest in Gaza City. Another Gazan woman, who identified herself as a 34-year-old teacher, called the officials gathered in Annapolis “a bunch of losers”, adding that they did not represent the issues that were important to the daily lives of Palestinians…

Like, you know, getting rid of the Jews and stuff.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:18 | link | comments

Annapolis is destined to fail because...: The Palestinians and their Arab supporters aren't interested in nationhood. They're only interested in eliminationhood.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:10 | link | comments

JudeRat: I figured it out: The Saudis are the Nazis and Olmert and his regime are the Judenrat helping facilitate the genocide.

If you don't want to lose your supper (or breakfast, or lunch) I'd advise you not to watch this clip of the Rat on NPR.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:38 | link | comments

Key obsession: The Iranians, who were purposely left off the Annapolis guest list, say they hold “the key” to solving the Middle East’s security problems. “No, no,” say the Syrians.  We’ve got the 'the keys' to solving the mess.”

Then there are the Palestinians, who continue to make a great show every year of  hauling out their sacred keys—ones to homes they vacated in ’48 and have been longing to “return” to ever since.

To all these excitable key-holders, there is only one is only reasonable response: Put away your keys. They’ve changed the locks.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:56 | link | comments

Why Annapolis is a complete waste of time, in a nutshell: “Arab states insist normalization with Israel not on the agenda at conference”—Ha’aretz.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:41 | link | comments

France fried: It’s those testy young lads of unspecified origin—again. They’ve redoubled their efforts to darken the City of Lights. From AP:

VILLIERS-LE-BEL, France -- Rampaging youths rioted overnight in the suburbs of Paris, hurling Molotov cocktails and setting fire to dozens of cars. At least 77 officers were injured, a senior police union official said Tuesday.

The violence was more intense than during three weeks of rioting in 2005, said the official, Patrice Ribeiro. Police were shot at and are facing "genuine urban guerillas with conventional weapons and hunting weapons."

Some officers were hit by shotgun pellets, Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said. She said there were six serious injuries, "people who notably were struck in the face and close to the eyes."

The trigger for the rioting was the deaths of two teens killed in a crash with a police patrol car on Sunday in Villiers-le-Bel, a town of public housing blocks home to a mix of Arab, black and white residents in Paris's northern suburbs.

Residents said that officers left the crash scene without helping the teens, whose motorbike collided with the car. Officials cast doubt on the claim, but the internal police oversight agency was investigating.

Youths first rioted that night and again overnight Monday to Tuesday, when the violence apparently got worse. Rioters set police barricades on fire and threw stones and Molotov cocktails at officers, who retaliated with tear gas and rubber bullets. In Villiers-le-Bel and surrounding areas, youths set fire to 36 vehicles, the area's prefecture said. Youths were seen firing buckshot at police and reporters.

A police union official said a round from a hunting rifle pierced the body armor of one officer who suffered a serious shoulder wound. Among the buildings targeted by the youths was a library, which was set afire.

In Sunday's violence, eight people were arrested and 20 police officers were injured -- including the town's police chief, who was beaten in the face when he tried to negotiate with the rioters, police said…

Just goes to show what happens when you try to “negotiate” with people who despise you and want you gone.

Are you taking notes, Condi?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments

A voice of reason: Ralph Peters understands what’s at stake at Annapolis, even if George and Condi don’t get it. From the New York Post:

November 27, 2007 -- SHORT of intolerable carnage, there's no durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. None. The best all parties can hope for is an occasional time-out.

 

A respite between rounds isn't worthless, of course - lives are saved, Israel's economy improves and the Arabs get one more chance to get their act together. But we're forever disappointed because we're convinced there's a good, permanent solution, if only we can figure it out.

That's the American way: a can-do spirit, the conviction that no problem's too tough for us. But, in the real world (and in the bizarre fantasyland of Arab culture), some foreign problems can't be resolved equitably. They can only smolder on, occasionally erupting in flames.

In the Middle East, you can't buy peace. You can only buy time. If we want to help at all, the fundamental requirement is to have realistic expectations.

At present, the situation is aggravated by the Bush administration's desperate quest for a headline-worthy foreign-policy success - mirroring the Clinton administration in its closing years. But desperation's a poor basis for dealing with a geopolitical problem of near-infinite complexity, with ill will on every side except our own.

What happens in the course of Middle East "peace" talks under such circumstances? Whether the American administration is Republican or Democrat, it pressures Israel for concessions - since the Arabs won't make any. Prisoner releases precede each summit; territorial handovers come under discussion.

For their parts, Arab leaders and their representatives assume we're sufficiently honored if they just show up. We hear no end of nonsense about the great political risks they're taking, etc. We're suckers for any fat guy in a white robe with an oil can.

Today's session in Annapolis may or may not result in a we-the-undersigned statement or a few unenforceable commitments. And yes, there's merit just in bringing folks together and keeping them talking. But the baseline difficulty is that we want to solve problems for people who don't really want those problems solved.

Mahmoud Ab- bas and his Fatah Party, for example, couldn't accept a genuine peace tomorrow morning - even though Hamas' coup in Gaza has put them up against the wall. Their problem? The most successful jobs program in the Arab world has been Palestinian "resistance" to Israel.

Consider what peace with Israel - real peace - would mean in the West Bank and Gaza, in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley: Tens of thousands of gunmen (and terrorists) out of work, with no marketable skills - and radicalized by decades of fanatic rhetoric.

Think a punk who's grown accustomed to swaggering around town in a face mask with a Kalashnikov is going to scrub squat toilets for a living?

Generations have grown addicted to the struggle - and its perks. It's the only bearable justification for their individual and collective failures in life. Real peace with Israel would probably spark a convulsion throughout the Arab world - as tens of millions realized that their sacrifices were a travesty that merely empowered thieves.

Another reason Arab states won't make peace: Most of their leaders have only survived in power because they have Israel to blame for every disappointment their people face. Israel has become the great excuse for every self-wrought failure in the Middle East - and that excuse is more valuable to Arab rulers than peace could ever be.

Were peace ever to arrive, Arabs might begin to demand good government. And the corruption that has thrived during decades of crisis could come into question. Worst of all, Arabs might have to accept responsibility for the catastrophic condition of their own societies.

In the end, the problem's difficulty can be put in New York City terms: A shiftless, violent family that turned an apartment into a slum was evicted. The new tenants cleaned up the place and made the apartment a showcase. Now the former tenants hate them for it - and want the apartment back.

But the apartment can only accommodate one family.

If you want a sober perspective on the Annapolis dog-and-pony show, just ask yourself this: Who will leave disappointed, if nothing much results?

The Arabs won't care. They came because we got on our knees and begged.

The Israelis will just be relieved that their latest trip to the geostrategic dentist is over.

Any Russians soiling the furniture at the Naval Academy will be delighted if another American effort flops.

And the Europeans just popped in to check the "we care" box.

The only unhappy campers will be us. We set ourselves up. Again…

Update: More uncommon common sense--this time from Daniel Pipes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:52 | link | comments

A mighty wind: It bloweth ill. With appologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein:

Annapolis

Where the ‘rabs come sweepin' down the room.

While o’er in Iran

They have a plan

To kill Yids with one great big kaboom.

Annapolis

Where they’re gonna have a lot of fun

Carving up the land.

Gee, ain’t it grand,

Jews outnumbered there

Sixteen to one?

 

We know that George Bush loves the Sauds

Even tho’ they are nothing but frauds.

 

So when he says,

“Heed me ‘cause I’m the Prez.”

He’s only sayin’

“I have a goal

Annapole-is

'Cause Sauds swiped my cojones.”

 

You know that the Prez loves this Saud

Even tho’ he purveys the jihad.

 

So when we say, “Quit.

This summit’s full of sh*t.”

We’re only sayin’

You can’t appease or placate ‘em.

No, not even one bit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:17 | link | comments

This is the way George Bush ends/Not with a bang but a whimper: The Jews, on the other hand, get gangbanged.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:15 | link | comments

Barf:

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:50 | link | comments

Down with cheese curds and gravy: While angry “youths” are up to their old hijinks— torching everything in sight— another group of French protesters has tangled with gendarmes because of anger over a popular Quebec dish affectionately known to some as a "coronary on a plate.”

Oh, wait. Wrong Poutine.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:52 | link | comments

Angry young men: En France, encore. From the Turkish Press:

Angry youths set fire to buildings, shops and a police station after two teenagers died Sunday in a crash with a police car at a Paris suburb, as 21 policemen and firefighters were injured in the unrest, police said.

A police station in the town of Villiers-le-Bel was set on fire and another one in neighbouring Arnouville was wrecked after the pair -- aged 15 and 16 -- were killed in the accident.

Police said there were reports of "small groups attacking shops, passers-by and car drivers" to rob them. One suspect carrying jewelry from a looted store at Villiers-le-Bel was detained.

Rioters torched two garages, a petrol pump and two shops, pillaged the railway station at Arnouville and set fire to at least 21 cars. Police reported at least seven arrests.

Four riot police officers and three other police officers were wounded in clashes which erupted after 6:00 pm (1700 GMT) accident, according to first reports.

Police earlier said that another officer who tried to calm the situation suffered injuries to his face.

Early Monday, some 100 youths thronged the accident site as police forensic experts examined the area.

"The truth should emerge or we will take the law in our own hands," some of them warned the police.

Omar Sehhouli, the brother of one of the victims, told AFP he wanted the police officers "responsible" for the accident to be brought to justice.

He said the rioting "was not violence but an expression of rage."…

See, it isn’t officially “violent” if it’s done by those who can claim to be “victims” of officialdom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:39 | link | comments

Another un"bear"able insult: A Brit teaching in Sudan is in deep doo-doo for allowing her students to name the class teddy “Muhammad.”  From the Guardian:

A British primary school teacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of blasphemy for allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad, it emerged today.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested yesterday at her home inside Unity high school, a British international school, after a number of parents made a complaint to Sudan's education ministry.

The school's director, Robert Boulos, said Gibbons had since been charged with blasphemy, an offence he said was punishable with up to three months in prison and a fine.

Gibbons's colleagues told Reuters they feared for her safety after receiving reports that young men had already started gathering outside the Khartoum police station where she was being held.

Boulos said Gibbons was following a national curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and their habitats. This year's animal was the bear.

Gibbons, who joined Unity in August, asked the class of mostly seven-year-olds to name the toy.

"They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name." Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad.

Each child was allowed to take the bear home at weekends and was told to write a diary about what he or she did with the toy. The entries were collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover, next to the message "My name is Muhammad," said Boulos.

Boulos said the first he knew about the course was last week when he received a phone call from the ministry of education, saying a number of Muslim parents had made formal complaints.

A spokesman for the British embassy in Khartoum said it was still unclear whether Gibbons had been formally charged. "We are following it up with the authorities and trying to meet her in person," he said.

Boulos said he had decided to close down the school until January for fear of reprisals in Sudan's predominantly Muslim capital. "This is a very sensitive issue," he said.

"We are very worried about her safety," he added. "This was a completely innocent mistake. Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Unity, an independent school founded in 1902, is governed by a board representing the main Christian denominations in Sudan but teaches both Christians and Muslims aged four to 18.

Good thing the “insult” didn’t go any further. Can you imagine the ruckus had one of the bear’s young charges tried to flush “Muhammad” down the loo?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:20 | link | comments (1)

Party pooper: Iran’s holiest rollah has noticed that the Persians have been pointedly left off the Annapolis guest list, and is none too pleased that his arch-rivals, the Custodians of the two Holy Shmoly Mosques, got an invite. From the Jerusalem Post:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Monday called the Annapolis conference a failure on Monday, claiming it was meant to salvage America's reputation in the region rather than realize the rights of Palestinians, state television reported.

"Today, all politicians know in advance that this conference has already failed," Khamenei said in a speech broadcast by state TV. "The US and its accomplices hope to preserve their reputation with this conference and compensate for past failures of the fake Zionist (Israeli) regime."

Khamenei's comments came on the heels of a telephone call late Sunday between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in which the Iranian president expressed disappointment at Saudi participation in the parley.

"I wish the name of Saudi Arabia was not among the participants at the Annapolis conference," the official news agency IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Don’t worry, oh frenzied one. Just ‘cause they’re Arabs doesn’t mean they don’t hate the fake Zionist (Israeli) regime—and long for its demise—every bit as much as you do.

But maybe that’s what’s shaking his sheets: he wants the Shias to get the credit for ridding the world of the Jews since that’s the only way his sodden Messiah (last seen centuries ago plummeting down a well) can come back.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments

An unlikely "convert": Guess who's gone "Kaballah?" The Arabist prince's homely spouse.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

Can’t do it: Can’t listen to Ceeb sob sister, Margaret “The Voice” Evans go on and on about those poor “refugees” who, for decades now, have been unable to see their “homeland,” but who, because of stories told to them in childhood, continue to pine for it. (Margaret earned her nic because of the marked change in the tonal quality of her voice whenever she’s talking about Arab “victims”—it goes all soft and whispery, and, lefty squish that she is, she sounds like she’s having such a hard time containing her emotions that she may be about to burst into tears. Oddly enough, this tonal quality is notably absent whenever she’s talking about Jews.)

There. Changed the station to JAZZ FM. Much better now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:35 | link | comments

Annapolis pile-on: During previous Peace in Our Time efforts—Oslo, Wye, Camp David—the Palestinians have had to go mano a mano with the Jews without the benefit of their Arab posse. This time, though, things will be different, as the Palestinians will have their entourage with them, and the Jews will be forced to contend with the whole howling pack.

An early Christmas prezzie for the Wahhabis from their friends at the White House.  From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A top Palestinian official has hailed the fact that representatives of Arab countries will attend Tuesday's summit in Annapolis, Maryland.

"After seven years of total stalemate, President Bush with [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice are providing an opportunity for us and the Israelis to resume the negotiations," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said.

"The different thing today from any other conferences throughout our conflict -- you have the Arab world coming."

Erakat told CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday that the inclusion of the wider international community will correct the mistakes of the last Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in the United States.

Syria and Saudi Arabia agreed to attend in the final days leading up to Tuesday's conference, after a push from the Arab League, which agreed to participate following a meeting on Friday.

Syria, which the U.S. State Department calls a sponsor of terrorism, announced Sunday it would send Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad, rather than its foreign minister, to Tuesday's conference, according to Syria's state-run news agency SANA.

Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisen welcomed Damascus' decision to attend.

"It's positive that Syria chose to send anybody," Eisen told CNN. "We weren't sure they would. The fact that they're choosing to send somebody who is openly Syrian ... [to] a conference which is all about the Israeli-Palestinian track is an important one."

"The whole world is coming to tell Palestinians and Israelis, 'We are standing shoulder to shoulder with you,' " Erakat said. "This is significant."

While the 2000 Camp David summit took the peace process "a long, long, long way," it was limited because it only included U.S., Israeli and Palestinian delegations, according to Erakat.

"Today I think we learned the mistakes of what went wrong in Camp David -- the absence of Arabs, the absence of the international community, the support system that should be provided by many parties," he told CNN. "This is what's being done today."

Erakat is part of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' delegation, which arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, on Saturday night, as anxiety over possible Palestinian concessions prompted protesters to take to the streets of Gaza.

The Israeli delegation, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, arrived Sunday.

Erakat agreed that no "magic stick" would emerge from the 24-hour meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, but said it would provide the basis for talks that should begin the day after Tuesday's meeting.

"I think the most important thing today is [the] 28th of November, the day after Annapolis," Erakat said. "Palestinians and Israelis will stand next to each other and announce that they are launching the permanent status negotiations, deciding to put a work plan for the negotiations, and to carry out their obligations emanating from the road map."

Erakat told CNN his team is open to discussing land swaps, meaning that if Israel takes parts of the West Bank, then the Palestinian Authority could take parts of Israel for a future state.

On Monday, President Bush will hold separate White House meetings with Olmert and Abbas. Rice will hold a dinner Monday evening for all the delegations at the State Department, and Bush will speak.

Tuesday will be the main event, a full -- and likely long -- day of meetings. On Wednesday, the president again will meet the Israelis and Palestinians at the White House.

Rice described the final U.S. push for the conference -- persuading the Israelis and Palestinians to move past a demand for a new document before the conference and leap ahead to the new negotiations on Tuesday.

"It's hard in something this complex to just have principles," Rice explained. "The devil is in the detail. You might as well get to the detail, and that is what they are going to do."

The main thrust of the Annapolis talks will be establishment of an independent Palestinian state -- the two-state solution. But other huge issues related to regional peace are expected to surface, especially since long-time Israeli foes, Syria and Saudi Arabia and others, will attend.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch told reporters last week that everyone would have the opportunity to speak at Annapolis. "We will not turn the microphone off for anyone," he said.

The Syrian decision to attend comes less than three months after Israeli warplanes attacked a site in Syria reported to be a facility linked to nuclear weapons.

Israel accuses Syria of helping Palestinian militants who oppose the Jewish state's existence. It says Damascus is helping Iran and its anti-Israel policy.

Like Iran, Syria is listed on the U.S. State Department's roster of State Sponsors of Terrorism along with Cuba, North Korea and Sudan.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Sunday the conference will draw a line between moderates and extremists in the Arab world.

"There will be those who are here, those who support the process, and there will be those who are shouting -- Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah," she said. "They will be on the outside trying to stop this conference from happening."

Lippy Tzipi is labouring under the delusion that there’s a quantum difference—“a line,” if you please—between the “moderates” and the “extremists.” There isn’t. The only difference is that there are Arabs who, for the moment at least, are prepared to defer their gratification at seeing the Jewish state wiped out until a later time; we call them “moderates.” There are also Arabs, many supported by nuke-building Persians, who are much too impatient to sit down at a table and work out the fiddly bits of a faux “peace” treaty. These “extremists” want to wipe out the Jews RIGHT NOW. Oh, and by the way, they wouldn’t mind wiping out the “moderates,” too. Thus, when it comes to the Jews at least, the only real difference between the “moderates” and the “extremists” is not their desire to expunge Israel, but their time-table for getting the job done.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:17 | link | comments

The Jews are expendable—again: Melanie Phillips minces no words in describing America’s heinous betrayal of the Jews:

Whatever actually happens at Annapolis, what is blindingly obvious right now is the extent of America’s betrayal of the Jewish people and, in the process, of its own supposed core doctrine post 9/11. President Bush, through his proxy Condoleezza Rice, is pushing Israel to accept suicidally indefensible borders. By contrast, there is no pressure on Mahmoud Abbas to adhere to the first commitment of the Road Map, which is for him to dismantle the Palestinian infrastructure of terror. Only the victim of this terror is to make the most ‘painful sacrifice’ of all — its own existence.

There are many very shocking aspects to this American position. The first, and most dramatic, is the way in which President Bush has reneged on his own commitment to Israel. At the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Dore Gold spells out the extent of this perfidy:

 

On April 14, 2004, Prime Minister Sharon presented his Gaza Disengagement plan to President Bush and received as a quid pro quo a presidential letter with a set of U.S. guarantees about the shape of a future Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. Sharon appeared before the Knesset on April 22, 2004, and explained the significance of the Bush Letter:

There is American recognition that in any permanent status arrangement, there will be no return to the ‘67 borders. This recognition is to be expressed in two ways: understanding that the facts that have been established in the large settlement blocs are such that they do not permit a withdrawal to the ‘67 borders and implementation of the term ‘defensible borders.’

…The Bush Letter did not intend to impose the outlines of a peace settlement in lieu of future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. However, it laid out an updated vision of the U.S. position on a final peace settlement if the U.S. were actually asked to provide these details by the parties, especially if negotiations stalemated. The Bush Letter, moreover, did not represent a sharp break with past U.S. policy; it was fully consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242. Former President Ronald Reagan used the language of ‘defensible borders’ in September 1982 and it was adopted by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher in January 1997 in his letter of assurances to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There is a serious question about the exact standing of the Bush Letter on the eve of Annapolis. Buried in the address by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Nashville on November 13, 2007, was a surprising sentence: ‘I believe that most Israelis are ready to leave most of the — nearly all of the West Bank, just as they were ready to leave Gaza for the sake of peace.’2 It is doubtful that Rice was reflecting on the results of any serious Israeli public opinion poll, which actually show strong Israeli support for retaining strategic areas of the West Bank, like the Jordan Valley. And given Israel's bitter experience from unilaterally leaving the Gaza Strip, it is difficult to draw analogies from Israeli positions on Gaza prior to the August 2005 disengagement and Israeli positions, at present, toward withdrawal from the West Bank. It is likely that she carefully chose her language as a trial balloon, couching a new possible U.S. position on borders as a general statement about Israeli public opinion.

Having decided to convene the Annapolis meeting, the Bush administration is under enormous pressure to make sure it succeeds. The situation that has been created provides the Arab states with enormous leverage over Washington to revise its positions on the core issues in order to obtain their attendance at a high enough level. Even if the U.S. does not issue its own statement in lieu of the Joint Statement, a revised U.S. position could come in the form of a presidential address or even private communications from Washington to Arab capitals that erode the Bush Letter and empty it of much of its original content.

So why is this happening? People have noticed that the proposal on the Annapolis table is essentially a reheated version of the Saudi ‘peace’ plan, which required Israel to retreat to the 1967 ‘Auschwitz’ borders, exile Jews altogether from their holiest place, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and accept the mass immigration of Arabs from the disputed territories — which would destroy Israel’s existence as a Jewish state — despite the creation of a separate state of Palestine (from which of course Jews would be excluded). The most likely immediate reason for President Bush’s shameful acceptance of this proposal to annihilate by stealth its ally, Israel, is the fact that, as this article suggests, Saudi is calling the shots. If anyone should doubt the vast power of the Saudi lobby, this provides a primer.

So much for the supposedly all-powerful American Jewish lobby of which we hear so much and from so many. It turns out that six million overwhelmingly Democrat-voting American Jews are totally eclipsed by the power over a Republican President of Saudi oil. Well, waddya know.

But the Saudi lobby has been in place for a very long time. So why has Bush performed this astounding volte-face now? Two explanations. The first is that he is but the latest to be captured by Presidential Middle East Derangement Syndrome — the fantasy that he can engrave his place in history as the President who brought the simulacrum of peace to the Middle East. The second is that this is in line with the idea that a historic realignment is under way, in which mutual interests with the west mean that ‘moderate’ Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia can be brought into a grand coalition against Iran provided a bone is thrown their way. That bone — don’t laugh — is supposed to be a Palestinian state.

Of course, the idea that Saudi is at all concerned about the fate of the Arabs of the territories is ludicrous; the idea that if a state of Palestine comes into being this will make all the difference to Saudi’s membership of a coalition against Iran is beyond ludicrous. If Saudi thinks that it is in its interests to present itself as America's ally against Iran, it will do so regardless of the fate of the Palestinians. Its cause in the Middle East is not and has never been their interests; it is, as it always was, the destruction of the Jewish state. Saudi may be Iran’s regional enemy but in terms of the global jihad they are both singing from the same murderous songsheet. Saudi wants Israel annihilated and its holy sites in Jerusalem erased. And America, in this bone-headedly stupid and amoral strategic error, is trying its damnedest to help bring this about — thus signalling its wholesale retreat from the ‘Bush doctrine’ and calamitously undermining the defence of the west.

Annapolis is America’s Munich — and Israel is the new Czechoslovakia.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:20 | link | comments (2)

Outnumbered: Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni claims Israel won’t allow the Arabs to dictate the terms of "settlement." From the Ceeb:

As Arab countries prepare to sit down with Israel for the first time in several years, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Sunday made it clear they should not expect to dictate the contours of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Arab League members grudgingly agreed to send their foreign ministers to a U.S.-hosted conference meant to renew Israeli-Palestinian peace talks after a violent, seven-year lull in negotiations. On Sunday, holdout Syria said its deputy foreign minister would attend.

Livni, on her flight to Washington, D.C., suggested that a lack of Arab backing contributed to the failure of the last round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in early 2001. The Arab world, she told reporters, "should stop sitting on the fence."

"There isn't a single Palestinian who can reach an agreement without Arab support," Livni said. "That's one of the lessons we learned seven years ago."

But she also said, "It is not the role of the Arab world to define the terms of the negotiations or take part in them."

Arab countries had been reluctant to attend the conference, which begins Monday night in Washington, then moves to Annapolis, Md…

The confirmed list of Arab invitees includes the Arab League and Arab countries such as Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Mauritania, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The list of Jewish invitees is limited to one miniscule Jewish state.

Given that the deck has been so methodically stacked against her, Livni clearly doesn’t stand a chance.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:12 | link | comments

Anal retentives: I’m sure there’s a clear psychoanalytical explanation to account for the ongoing stories about revolting indignities supposedly being visited upon Korans in bathrooms (including this latest one from Nigeria, where a university student sparked campus unrest when he “confided in his colleagues that he mistakenly used a page of the Quran when he went to toilet in the night and that he never knew the paper he used were pages from the Quran”—I ask you, is that even plausible?). But I couldn’t even begin to account for the bizarre fixation that marries the Koranic and the cloacal, and which seems, as well, to incorporate a perverse and unpleasant sexual element.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:53 | link | comments

Annapolis Arabs sing: A tuneful fave from the Swing era:

All of it,

Why not take all of it?

Have a fit

If Jews have a portion.

Take this land,

It’s Dar al Islamic.

We can't share.

Our rage is Titanic.

Jews don’t rate

So we’ll eliminate

The pesky state

They claim is Judaic.

They took our land

Now, heed our command,

And let us take all of it.

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

 Ever our own worst enemy: The New York Sun has an article that looks at Israel's Jewish defamers. By sheer co-incidence, I happen to have just read the following in Ruth Wisse's 1992 book, If I Am Not For Myself…THE LIBERAL BETRAYAL OF THE JEWS:

A great many European Jews tried to escape the ignominy of anti-Semitism through conversion. Before the modern period, and in Russia until the Revolution, a Jew who wished to quit his people had to convert to Christianity, which made the choice more painful but in no way affected the boundaries between Jew and non-Jew. After Emancipation, the promise of equality raised hopes of acceptance in the Jews while the concurrent rise of anti-Semitism increased their insecurity. Offered the possibility of citizenship, modern Jews less often converted to Christianity than identified with the liberal politics and outlook that had south their advancement. If they were then still unwelcome, they often blamed the Jew in themselves for having alienated the liberal, or tried to mitigate opposition to themselves by dividing the “good” Jews from the “bad.” Early reformers of the Enlightenment blamed anti-Semitism on the reactionary dress and practices of the Hasidic Jews; Jewish socialists blamed anti-Semitism on the Jews who had agreed to play the role of middlemen in feudal societies and on Jewish capitalists who took over their role as exploiters; Jewish assimilationists blamed anti-Semitism on the false consciousness of nationalist Jews who refuse to melt into the mainstream. Anti-Semites got it wrong as usual when they accused Jews of betraying their countries of citizenship as a consequence of their “dual loyalty.” From the dawn of Emancipation until the present, the conflict of loyalties that anti-Semitism forces upon the Jews resulted almost exclusively in their betrayal not of Gentiles, but of fellow Jews.

Now, in a chilling duplication of the past, anti-Zionism affects Jewish attitudes toward Israel precisely the way anti-Semitism once affected Jewish attitudes toward Jewishness. When Arabs began to attack the legitimacy of Israel, they forced liberal Jews, including liberal Israelis, to choose between confidence in the Jewish state and confidence in the triumph of liberalism. Under political pressure that has grown steadily stronger in the past twenty years, many Israelis tried responding to the charges against them by differentiating between the pure and good Zionism of ingathering versus the evil Zionism of expansionism. Despite the transforming presence of a Jewish country, intellectuals and writers in Israel today, like their diaspora counterparts of the 1930s, try to separate their own “progressive” desire for an independent homeland for the “reactionary” desires of their fellow Jews, in order to escape the Arab politics of hatred.

Annapolis is set to reveal the obvious: the attempt to deflect Judenhass by condemning and distancing oneself from those misidentified as the “bad” Jews will prove as as futile today as it was back then.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:30 | link | comments

Jemima puddles and ducks: Jemima Khan, the British glamazon who “reverted” to Islam to marry soccer player Imran Khan (she later divorced him and is known in the tabs as actor Hugh Grant’s main squeeze) condemns those who view Islam as a monolith and can’t see the good in it. And because she is a product of her environment and the times, she also takes the opportunity to indulge in a non sequitar, condemning those who call critics of Israel anti-Semitic (not mentioning, of course, that many of them are antisemites, and that making such a charge is often a smokesceen that allows them to sling mud at the hated Zionists with impunity). From the Telegraph:

I recently attended a debate entitled "Is Islam good for London?" Despite its billing as the most important issue facing Londoners today, the "for London" in the title proved superfluous. It was the intellectual equivalent of reality TV: excruciating to watch but impossible to walk away from. At that kind of very confrontational debate, people turn up to support their own team. It's more about who is wrong than who is right. Rarely does anyone leave with a changed view.

The spectacle kicked off with an assertion by the journalist Rod Liddle that "the pernicious, bigoted, misogynistic, totalitarian, fascistic ideology of Islam must be rejected".

There was a spirited defence of Islam by Ed Husain, reformed extremist and author of The Islamist. He argued that Islamism and Islam are distinct: Islamism is a political ideology, which proposes a profoundly conservative religious vision for state and society which in its attitudes to apostasy, women, homosexuality and free speech is generally anathema to Western liberal convictions (including, emphatically, his and, for the record, mine). The social conservatism and separatist mindset of Muslims in the West, he argued, must be challenged.

He was let down by his teammate Inayat Bunglawala (bungle by name…) of the Muslim Council of Britain, who went down in the first round to the braying of the audience.

Those arguing in favour of the Liddle point of view prefaced their arguments with the usual spiel about it being an attack on the ideology and not the people, but it all got horribly personal. When a female member of the audience asked a question about Palestine, a man behind me shouted "Nazi!" For the faint-hearted it was almost too bloody to watch.

It wasn't just me who found the title, tone and content of the debate disturbing. The liberal rabbi, Pete Tobias, described it as a "damaging and hurtful exercise", sinisterly reminiscent of the campaign a century ago to alert the population to "the Problem of the Alien" - namely the Eastern Jews fleeing persecution who had found refuge in the capital.

My view is that it was symptomatic of a much wider and deeper hostility to Islam and, contrary to the claims of the panellists, to Muslims too.

Martin Amis recently said it was the ideology of Islam and not Muslims he had a problem with, but added: "They are gaining on us demographically at a huge rate. A quarter of humanity now and by 2025 they'll be a third. We're just going to be outnumbered." It's clear when he talks of the dangers of being outnumbered and outbred, that Amis is not talking about the ideology or even militant Islamists, but about ordinary Muslims.

He continued (in what he later defended as a "thought experiment"): "There's a definite urge - don't you have it? - to say the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not let them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan… Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole Muslim community and they start getting tough with their children."

On the subject of Muslims, liberal intellectuals like Amis find themselves uncomfortably in bed with the neocons. They even sound alike. British Muslims that I know feel overwhelmed in the face of such hostility.

In my experience, having lived for 10 years in a Muslim country and visited many others, there is a huge variety of beliefs within Islam and a cultural diversity amongst Muslims that is not often taken into account. Islam is not a monolithic entity. Which Islam, which Muslims do they hate? Mystical Sufi Islam? The culturally-influenced Islam of the Subcontinent? The literalist and extreme Wahabbi Islam? Militant jihadist Islam?

The Albanian Muslim is different from his Saudi brother. There are devout Muslims and less devout Muslims. Some drink, some don't. Some believe in arranged marriages, others have sex outside marriage. A minority believe that homosexuals and infidels should be murdered. A majority find such views repugnant.

It's true that the Muslim community is bad at introspection and self-criticism. Labelling all critics Islamophobes, as often happens (though Rod Liddle outed himself: "Islamophobia? Count me in") is an old ploy to close down debate. It was used 70 years ago, when a critic of the Soviet Union could expect to be called a fascist. A critic of Israeli government policy today is often labelled anti-Semitic.

And although Muslims increasingly feel like a demonised minority, even by liberals, it is also true that Islam is an ideology. As such it must expect to be challenged in an open society, no matter how uncomfortable or personal that debate becomes. Not only must Islam - with its social and political mandate - expect to be challenged by modern secular society but, more importantly, it must also expect to be challenged from within the Islamic tradition. Its evolution depends on such a challenge.

But it would help greatly if critics of Islam would give as much attention to the moderate Muslims engaged in that vital internal debate as they do to the hook-handed, effigy-burning few.

It would help greatly, too, if apologists for Islam could own  up to the problematic passages in the Koran, as well as the problematic aspects of the perfect Prophet’s life—whose example continues to inspire the faithful and is the source of so many of our current difficulties.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:29 | link | comments

Pathetic fallacies of the Annapolis summit: There are at least five—count ‘em—five. From the Jerusalem Post:

The first is that Palestinian society can be reformed by outsiders. Middle Eastern societies have already proven their resistance to attempts by Western powers to change their old ways of doing business. It is naïve to believe that political and social dynamics rooted in centuries-old traditions can be easily manipulated by well-intentioned, but presumptuous Westerners. President George W. Bush should have learned this lesson from his experience in Iraq.

Change among Palestinian and other Middle Eastern societies can only originate from within. And if such a positive evolution were to take place, it would more likely be brought about from within by an autocratic ruler than from the outside by well-meaning Westerners.

Moreover, American power to change the foreign policy of even minor international actors must not be exaggerated. The late Hafez Assad of Syria said "no" to president Bill Clinton in Geneva (March 2000), and Yasser Arafat did the same at Camp David (July 2000).

The second fallacy is that economic assistance to the Palestinians can alleviate political problems. Since the Oslo Accords in September 1993, the Palestinian Authority has received the most economic aid per capita in the world. Yet billions of euros transferred to the PA have been squandered or misused. Like some other Third World actors, the PA has been ingenious in siphoning a not insignificant amount of the aid it gets to those least in need of outside support.

Moreover, economic aid is only as good as the ability of a recipient's economy and government to use it productively. Therefore, it is doubtful that sending more money to the dysfunctional Palestinian economy will do any good.

The third fallacy is that Mahmoud Abbas can become the agent for change and therefore he deserves the support of the West. Abbas's record as a leader is dismal. He failed to unite the security services under one organ as he pledged and has not followed through with his anti-corruption election campaign promises. If anything, the chaos within the PA increased under his presidency. The Hamas takeover of Gaza is an obvious indication of his weakness.

The fourth fallacy is that Palestinian society can be quickly transformed into a good neighbor of Israel and that a stable settlement is within reach. Since the Oslo Accords, the PA's education system, media, and dramatic militarization process has done great damage to the collective Palestinian psyche. A society mesmerized by the use of force and embracing of the shahid (martyr) ready explode among the hated Israelis will not change overnight. Numerous facets of Palestinian society have been radicalized and the widespread influence and popularity of Hamas is a clear indication of such a process.

IN CONTRAST to Egypt and Jordan, where pragmatic politics led to agreements with Israel, Palestinian politics is not pragmatic and is ever more radicalized by Hamas and a young militaristic generation. What they expect to get from Israel is totally unrealistic. The differences between Israel and the Palestinians are unbridgeable. After being subjected to a terrorist campaign beginning in 2000, Israelis are unlikely to take blind risks for an uncertain settlement. Palestinian demands for bringing refugees from 60 years ago and their descendents into Israel and for control over parts of old Jerusalem are simply not acceptable in today's Israel.

Moreover, Israel has already received American acquiescence for holding on to the large settlement blocs near the 1949 Armistice Lines, nor is Israel about to give up the strategic Jordan Valley.

The fifth fallacy is that Hamas control of Gaza can be uprooted by intra-Palestinian politics. While Hamas's takeover of Gaza is correctly identified by the US as a victory for the Islamist forces in the Middle East and inimical to Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement, a Fatah led by Abbas cannot bring Hamas back under the PA umbrella. The West Bank Palestinians are too weak to impose their will on Gaza and without territorial contiguity they have little leverage on Gazan politics.

And in point of fact, it is Israel's counter-terrorist activities that prevent the West Bank falling into the hands of Hamas - not Abbas.

The Americans are not likely to attain their noble objectives and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue to simmer because the Palestinians cannot get their act together…

Also, because they and other Arabs remain committed to putting an end, once and for all, to the Zionist “experiment.”

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

This one’s for you, Dad: When I was very young, my late father’s favourite group was a folk trio called The Limeliters. Though never as popular as their contemporaries, The Kingston Trio, the Limeliters had a strong cult following, and even reunited for a time in the 70s. They had a cheeky, madcap streak that appealed to my Dad, who also appreciated The Goon Show and Monty Python.

For no particular reason, I happened to think of the Limeliters this morning, and found this, a rousing song about Israel in which they even assayed some Hebrew, on You Tube. It would be great if someone could play it for the assembled at Annapolis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:19 | link | comments

Isn't that nice of them?: Arabs give U.S., Israel benefit of doubt at Annapolis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments

Lies, damned lies, and Shia statistics: The results are in and, according to a survey “ordered” by Fars News Agency (who says the media lack power?), the majority of Iranians are delighted with the “conservative” tack their government is taking:

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- 55.5% of Iranians believe that the present parliament with a conservative majority has been more successful in solving people's problems than the reformist parliament acting at the time of former President Khatami, results of a recent opinion poll suggested.

The results of the poll, ordered by FNA and conducted by one of the creditable polling centers in Iran, said that 25.6% of the 10,830 people polled in different Iranian cities stated that the reformist government had served more successfully than the present parliament.

The same survey showed that 78.9% of Iranians support parliament's approvals and policy on the country's nuclear issue.

According to the results, 78.9% of the subjects described parliament's performance and approvals with regard to the nuclear issue as "appropriate" and "fully appropriate".

While 40.7% of the subjects believed that MPs have proved to be highly motivated in removing people's problems, 25.8% said that their representatives at the parliament seem to be a little or little motivated.

The same opinion poll showed that a majority of Iranians will participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Results suggested that a minimum 44% and maximum 70% of Iranians will cast a vote in the upcoming elections…

Well, as long as it’s been conducted by one of Iran’s “creditable” polling centers…

Still, for a fascist, this-aint’-nothing-more-than-window-dressing type election, the expected turnout sounds rather low. Didn’t Joe Stalin and Sadaam Hussein used to get at least 90 something per cent of their “voters” to show up? Or have the numbers been purposely (and purposefully) low-balled so Iran’s leaders can crow about the “unexpectedly” high turnout later on?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:38 | link | comments

Shilling for the enemy: Noam "Lord Haw Haw" Chomsky bloviates from a bully pulpit on the Shia-Nazi website.

Way to go, Noam!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:05 | link | comments (1)

I couldn't have said it better myself: No more Middle East peace charades, please.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:01 | link | comments

Parsing Abdullah: To hear the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques talk, he sounds like he’s really big on interfaith  dialogue. Here he is sounding all tolerant and inclusive in his in-house organ, Arab News:

JEDDAH, 25 November 2007 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah yesterday called upon the followers of different faiths to uphold their shared values to promote world peace and understanding.

"If different communities and cultures would turn to their great principles (taught by their religions) then they would find many things that bring them closer, keep them away from conflicts and improve their human qualities," the king said.

King Abdullah made this comment while receiving Chief Executive of World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab and Middle East Director Sherif El-Diwany. He also stressed that corporate as well as individual activities should be based on moral values that create perfect human beings…

What he’s really saying: If different communities and cultures (meaning you, you obdurate Crusader and Jewish dhimmis who, as recounted in the noble Qur’an, have failed to heed your own religious teachings) would only accept the one true faith and allow it to take the lead, a genuine “peace”—the “peace” of Islam—could finally prevail.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link | comments

Portrait of treachery: With apologies to Nat King Cole (but not to the woman in question):

Condoleezza, Condoleezza,

Bush has named you

To head up the ambush in Annapolis.

Is it only ‘cause his crony, King Abdullah,

Is such trouble and despises Zionists?

 

Do you know what you are doing, Condoleezza,

Or are you flailing in the dark and up a creek?

Many ‘Rabs have arrived at your doorstep—

They’ll lie there and they’ll cry there.

Are you nuts, are you blind Condoleezza

Or just a wishful-thinking Foggy Bottom sneak?

 

Do you know what you are doing, Condoleezza,

‘Cause to me it seems you don't know what to do.

Many ‘Rabs have arrived at your doorstep—

They’ll whine there and they’ll dine there.

Are you cracked, are you deaf, Condoleezza,

Or just a well-intended hen without a clue?

 

Condoleezza,

Condoleezza.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:58 | link | comments

He blind-sided me with science: Another riveting essay by Mo Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. In an earlier piece, Mo outlined the immense debt the English language owes Islam for lending it so many wonderful words (some of which—oops!—weren’t even of Islamic origin). In this latest essay, he outlines the immense debt the West owes Islam for inventing so many wonderful mathematical and scientific concepts:

The science of charting the Earth's lands and waters was of primary importance to Muslim navigators, for next to faith itself and one's obedience to it, commerce and travel fed the social economy and thus governed people's daily lives.

In addition to improving the astrolabe (without which no Western mariner would feel safe on the open seas for centuries to come), Muslims were the first to apply the principle of magnetism to marine and land travel, perhaps as early as the 9th and 10th centuries.

Al-Khwarizmi and other leading Muslim scientists measured and standardized the length of a terrestrial degree, while Al-Biruni accurately determined latitude and longitude: in fact, six centuries before Galileo, he pondered the possibilities of the Earth's rotation about its own axis.

The leading 12th-century geographer al-Idrisi, a star product of the brilliant Islamic culture that flourished in Sicily, was commissioned by the Norman King Roger II to compile a world atlas. With dozens of maps covering areas never before charted, al-Idrisi's atlas became the best mapped representation of the known world in Medieval times. Muslim achievements in geography and cartography were still leading the world during the 15th-century. When Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama set out to sail down the coast of Africa, his ship was guided by a Muslim pilot using Muslim maps and sea-charts still unknown to Europeans.

Not surprisingly, Muslim geographical encyclopaedias and dictionaries were a mainstay of European libraries for centuries. Works such as al-Burini's History of India and Yaqut's Mu'jam al-Buldan lit the way for future Western explorers, traders, and historians.

Ibn Baas was one of the greatest traveler-authors of the Middle Ages. Covering 75,000 miles between North Africa and China during the 14th century, he recorded in his famous book, Rihla (meaning "journey") everything from geography and politics to local religious and social customs wherever he visited. A later Muslim geographer produced the first authoritative account of Africa, which remained a basic source of European knowledge for two centuries.

The knowledge gained by Muslim geographers and cartographers was passed to the West largely through translators appointed by Christian kings, who were eager to advance their own nations by enriching them with Islamic scientific and intellectual achievements. Indeed, when the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II founded the University of Naples in 1224, one of his major aims was to enable Western scholars to learn from Islamic culture.

It is hard to imagine what modern life would be like without Arabic numerals. The history of the last seven centuries, particularly in the West, would certainly be different if 13th-century Europe had not adopted the Arabic style of counting and calculating.

Arabic numerals, as they came to be called throughout the world, also made it far easier to cope with simple everyday sums. Try solving even a simple arithmetic problem in Roman numerals -- the system in general Western use until the 13th century - and you would find it extremely unwieldy and time- consuming! Thus the Muslims gave to Europe an essential tool on which all of the world's science and commerce now depends.

The further mathematical development of Algebra - in which alpha-numeric symbols are capable of infinite potential or possibilities -- was a crucial innovation by 9th-century Muslims, most notably al-Khwarizmi, one of the greatest scientific minds of his era. Here, at the heart of this pivotal achievement, is a reflection of the Islamic faith in the mathematical concept of a universe whose creation by God is an unending, or infinitely living process.

Later Muslim scholars also made revolutionary advances in trigonometry and geometry. These new mathematical developments made it possible to reform the calendar to such a level of accuracy that it would be in error by only one day in five thousand years.

Armed with such flexible, yet precise methods of calculation, Muslim astronomers could explore the heavens in greater detail than had ever been possible. Their discoveries were not only important to science, but again both important and practical to their faith; for Muslims everywhere needed to know exactly in which direction to turn for prayers, what course to set for pilgrimages, and exactly when to begin the month-long fast of Ramadan.

In fact, it would take volumes to talk about Muslims contributions to mathematics and astronomy in the detail they deserve.

The 8th century scientists al-Fazari, al-Farghani, and al-Zarqali, as well as later scholars al-Battani, Ibn-Yunus and others, improved instruments such as the astrolabe and compass, built unprecedented large-scale astronomical observatories, and compiled planetary tables and star charts that were used throughout Europe for centuries.

In observing and mapping the movements of the sun, planets, stars and other heavenly bodies so comprehensively, Muslim astronomers expressed the fundamental aims of Islam, which urged a never-ending quest to understand God's visible signs in the cosmos.

Through observing the material universe, Muslims came to better understand the works of God. Nothing that humans could investigate on earth or in space was considered alien by these scientists.

Thus throughout the Muslim world, it was not at all unusual for an astronomer to be also a mathematician, geographer, physician, or even something of a philosopher and certainly, to some degree, a theologian!

Such multi-disciplined scholars paved the way for the European "Renaissance man" concept - a kind of versatile genius represented by Leonardo da Vinci, among others. He and other gifted scientists throughout the West, such as Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, benefited from the fruits of disciplined Muslim mathematician-astronomers who passed on their methods of objective investigation, as well as their preserved transcriptions of early classical pioneers, including Aristotle and Ptolemy.

Without this great combined heritage, the European Renaissance and modern Western civilization could hardly have taken shape as they did.

Without their Muslim scientific forebears, would it indeed have been possible for 20th-century astronauts to set foot on the Moon?...

Thanks for the history lesson, Mo. I’m sure at least some of it is true. Now, would you mind explaining to us why there seems to be a marked scarcity of “Renaissance men” in the Muslim world? Could it perhaps have something to do with Islamic doctrine and the way it inhibits rather than advances scientific inquiry?

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:56 | link | comments

Palestinian expectations: In song.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:29 | link | comments

There’s Gold in them thar clueless hills: Dore Gold, that is, Israel’s former ambassador to the U.N. Gold has always been as blessed with clear-sightedness as Ehud Olmert, Israel’s wrong man at the wrong time, has been befuddled by cluelessness. From the Toronto Star:

JERUSALEM–To hear Gen. Yom-Tov Samia tell it, the world can forget about peace in the Middle East any time soon.

Never mind that an international peace summit is set for this coming Tuesday in Annapolis, Md.

What looms ahead in Samia's estimation is renewed and deadly clashes between Israel and Palestinians – strife that will claim some 5,000 Palestinian lives and an untold number of Israelis.

"The terrorist organizations in Gaza are looking only for one thing," said Samia, former head of Israel Defence Forces' southern command. "The next war with Israel."

Welcome to the Holy Land, where even the optimists are sounding pessimistic these days, while the pessimists are sounding an awful lot like, well, like Gen. Samia – convinced the slightest miscalculation by their political leaders will spell certain disaster and thus opposed to the taking of chances.

"Going to Annapolis is a wasting of 200 visas for the United States," said Samia. "I'm not expecting anything from Annapolis except frustration on all sides."

Some 40 governments or institutions have been invited to send representatives to the meeting in Maryland, but it has become increasingly unclear what advances the one-day conference can be expected to produce.

Saudi Arabia waited till yesterday to confirm that its foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, would attend the meeting, while Syria – another critically important player in the labyrinth of Middle East politics – was still apparently undecided.

The idea for the Annapolis meeting was first broached following the commencement this past July of fortnightly meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the first hopeful steps toward regional peace after seven years of violence and almost complete diplomatic inaction.

For a while, the optimists were sounding downright optimistic.

"Maybe it was my wishful thinking," said Moshe Ma'oz, professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Jerusalem's Hebrew University.

Now, observers on both sides say they doubt there is much likelihood of a breakthrough either in Annapolis or in the coming months.

"I don't know if you can achieve peace with weak leaders," said Nader Said-Foqahaa, a prominent pollster in the West Bank capital of Ramallah. "Abbas does not have the ability to do anything."

With only a fragile hold on one half of a divided people, Abbas will likely be hard-pressed to deliver on commitments, while Olmert heads a tenuous parliamentary coalition that could easily disintegrate over any number of issues involving Israel and the Palestinians.

"The only way out of this is to unite Palestinians through action, and that means action against Israel," said Said-Foqahaa.

Like others here, Ma'oz says he had high initial hopes for the Annapolis meeting, believing that the participants would address many of the key issues that have long divided Israel and Palestinians, issues that include security guarantees for Israel, the future of Jerusalem, the location of borders between Israel and an independent Palestine, and the right of return claimed for some 5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

Originally, the two governments were expected to draft and sign a joint statement in advance of the meeting, a document that would set out a series of shared principles and establish a timetable for peace negotiations that many hoped – and some still hope – could produce a final agreement in a year or so.

But Abbas said yesterday the two sides would arrive in Annapolis with no joint declaration in hand.

According to Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, it should have been apparent all along that the divisions between Israel and the Palestinians are unbridgeable, at least for now. He blames the Americans for failing to see this.

"The United States say they know the contours of a settlement and `we just need to get them there,'" he said. "But this is a mistaken analysis. I think the parties may be even farther apart than before."...

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:37 | link | comments

Down with people: As if it weren't bad enough that mankind is killing off the polar bears and destroying Mother Earth, now there's word that we're so sucky and powerful that we're shortening the life of the entire flipping universe.

Something that definitely cannot be offset by purchasing credits from Fat Al's Cozy Carbon Credit Emporium and Karaoke Bar.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:27 | link | comments

Annapolis syndrome: It’s a newly-identified cognitive disorder which renders sufferers incapable of discerning reality. Among those who’ve been hit by it:

·         Condi Rice, who believes the Annapolis confab will result in a democratic Palestinian state that will act as a bulwark against an aggressive, nuclear Iran.

·         Ehud Olmert, who is tickled that he actually get to sit down at the same table as the Saudis, even though none of the Wahhabis would ever deign to shake his hand lest they pick up his Judeo-Zionist ape n’ pig cooties.

·         Hamas, which told VOA News that the attendance of Arab nations “…opens the door to normal relations with Israel.”

·         Israeli spokesman Mark Regev, who, in the same VOA News article claims “the whole point of this international meeting is to have a meeting of the moderate forces, those forces that want peace, those forces that oppose the hateful and extremist agenda of Hamas. And what we'd like to see is the Arab world be more involved and get off the fence.”

Let’s deal with each case, one by one:

·         Condi’s case is particularly severe since it has manifested itself as a delusional comparison of the Palestinians—whose culture embraces the jihad and reveres those willing to die in its name—with pre-civil rights era blacks in the American south. For Condi to expect the Palestinians to shun “extremism,” embrace democracy, and stand up to the Shias is more than ludicrous. It is, quite simply, bonkers.

·         Ehud Olmert, too, is seriously deranged, since all he seems to care about is getting to sit down at the same table as the Saudis, the world’s foremost purveyors/funders of the jihad ideology.

·         The case of Hamas may be the odd one out here, since Hamas must know there’s no way the conference will result in “normalized relations.” More likely, it’s upset to have been left off the guest list.

·         Here are some of the “moderate” Arab “fence-sitters” who’ve been invited to the Appeasapalooza: Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, Libya, and the United Arab Emirates. Only someone suffering from a bad case of Annapolis syndrome—like Regev—could describe any of these autocracies as “moderate” and expect them to commit getting off the fence and supporting that “two state solution.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:01 | link | comments

 "V" for victory: Mahmoud Abbas responds to the question, "How may states are you going to pretend to agree to at Annapolis?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:51 | link | comments

A song for Condi: In advance of Annapolis, this one's for you, Madame Secretary:

Tell us when you’ll get a clue.

Tell us Condi, Condi, Condi.

Up a creek with no canoe

And who’ll drown?

Must be the Jew.

 

Tell us why you are so blind.

Tell us Condi, Condi, Condi.

Why you’re plum out of your mind

And determined to go on.

 

All the Arab League is here.

Ev’ry single frikkin’ member

And their rationale is clear—

Make that Jew state go away.

 

By the time you get a clue,

Condi, Condi, Condi, Condi.

Israel will soon be through.

And the world'll go, "Boo-hoo." 

 

Long as Saudis have the oil

You’ll continue to placate ‘em

As we Zionists recoil

At your callous, craven ways.

 

Bucking for a ‘bel Peace Prize,

Condi, Condi, Condi, Condi?

Keep on list’ning to their lies

And you’re more than a shoe-in.

Armaggedon can begin.

You’ll have a rude awakenin’.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:03 | link | comments

 Madness to their method: So far the Bush administration’s “light unto Arab nations" project in Iraq has yet to enlighten even a corner of that vast, dark region. However, that hasn't deterred Condi et al from moving on to the next quixotic quest—an attempt to get the Arabs to stand up to the nuclear mullahs by getting the Jews and Palestinians to hammer out a peace deal:  From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States hopes one byproduct of its Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking will be a moderate Arab alliance to counter Iran's influence in the region, but analysts are skeptical the strategy will work.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has argued that a strong Palestinian state could act as a bulwark against a rise in extremism, mainly from Iran, which Washington accuses of backing groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

Rice is hosting a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis on Tuesday and wants broad Arab "buy-in" as she tries to launch the first serious negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians for seven years.

Rice was asked this week if ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had more to do with Iran than anything else.

"It's a strange argument," she told reporters but she reiterated her view that growing extremism in the Middle East was a key factor driving the main players in the region to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I think they understand the broader threat of extremism in the region, and that extremists use this (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict," she said.

Arab states have been pushing the Bush administration for years to be more active in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking but there is skepticism about current U.S. intentions coupled with lingering Arab mistrust following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

While many Sunni Arab states shun Shia Iran's role in the region, they do not want to be associated with any U.S. "bullying efforts," said Bruce Riedel, a former analyst with the CIA…

You mean Condi sincerely believes she can get the Palestinians--the Palestinians!--to do a complete about face and act as a buffer against the mullahs? And no one at Foggy Bottom or the White House has pointed out that she is out of her bleeding mind?

I don't know what they put in the drinking water in Washington, but there doesn't seem to be a sane person left in the joint.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:12 | link | comments

Dry Bones looks ahead to Annapolis:

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:59 | link | comments

The road to "Utopia": Pint-sized bloviator ‘Moud ‘Mahdinehad ties Iran’s nuclear ambitions to its desire to achieve “perfection”. From the Tehran Times:

TEHRAN - President Mahmud Ahmadinejad here on Wednesday said that Iran is prepared to hold talks on its nuclear program with all countries except the Zionist regime.

“The White House leaders should know that they are standing before a united and invincible nation,” Ahmadinejad told well-wishers in the northwestern city of Ardebil.

“They should know that the Iranian nation regards resistance against hegemonic powers as its duty,” the president noted.

“The enemy is making every effort to get even a very small concession from us before admitting complete defeat in the nuclear issue.... I hereby announce that despite all threats, the Iranian nation will not give the smallest concession to the West,” the president said as he started the second round of his visit to the province.

Ahmadinejad stated that “Today the Iranian nation is trying to make progress towards perfection.”

He advised the world powers to pay respect to Iran’s inalienable rights.

“In our opinion the nuclear issue has been concluded because we have moved according to the (International Atomic Energy) Agency’s law,” Ahmadinejad said.

Utterly chilling. When a power-hungry zealot like Ahmadinejad (or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao) talks about “perfection,” you can be sure that, unless he’s stopped in his tracks, untold millions are going to die for the sake of his Utopian dreams.

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

Sure beats the Macarena: There’s a new ring tone hit in Spain. From UK Press:

Many Spaniards were so amused when their king told Venezuela's president to "shut up" that they want to hear the words every time their phone rings.

About half a million people have downloaded a mobile phone ringtone featuring the phrase "Por que no te callas?" or "Why don't you shut up?". That's what King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez during a heated confrontation at a summit in Chile last week.

T-shirts and mugs featuring the words are also becoming a profitable business, and videos of the confrontation have been a hit on the YouTube website.

As Red Skelton once quipped: "Well, it only proves what they always say -- give the people what they want, and they'll come out for it."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments

It started with "the grassy knoll":  Lefty conspiracy-mongering and moonbattiness, that is.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:06 | link | comments

Le mot juste: Historian Timothy Garton Ash is on a quest for the perfect way to describe those who are waging violent jihad against infidels. He’s decided that “Islamists” is too broad, since not all Islamists are violent, and has settled on “jihadists”. From the Globe and Mail:

…Most Islamic terrorists are, in some sense, Islamists, but most Islamists are not terrorists. They are reactionaries. They propose a profoundly conservative religious vision of society that, in its attitudes to free speech, apostasy, homosexuality and women, is generally anathema to liberal secular convictions. But for the most part they do so, at least in the cases mentioned above, through peaceful political means, not violence. At the most moderate end of the broad spectrum of political Islamism, as represented by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development party in secular Turkey, they are closer to the U.S. Christian religious right than they are to al-Qaeda.

So what should we call the suicide mass-murderers and would-be mass-murderers? The best answer I have found so far is "jihadists," especially in the form "jihadist extremists" or "jihadist terrorists." I know that jihad can also be construed as peaceful spiritual struggle, but the Muslim opinion-leaders who I have consulted seem ready to accept this usage. It places a clear demarcation line between ordinary Muslims, even non-violent political Islamists, and the dealers in death, yet it does not obscure the religious connection. In fact, it makes it clearer than either of the alternative terms. Jihad, holy war, is precisely what the suicide-bombers tell us - in their pre-murder valedictory messages - that they were proudly engaged upon.

These are the people who are out to kill us and tear apart the civil fabric of our societies. When I say "us" I don't just mean secular liberals or Christians; I mean equally the innocent Muslim fellow citizens whom they murder in the same blasts and whose acceptance in the wider society they jeopardize. Two obligations follow. There is an obligation on us, non-Muslims living in open societies, to choose words carefully. Until someone comes up with a better one, I think jihadists is the most appropriate shorthand. There is, however, an equal, matching obligation on our Muslim fellow citizens. That is to condemn, audibly and unambiguously, the jihadists who threaten us all.

Garton Ash makes it sound as though there’s a clear distinction between “non-violent” Islamists and “violent” jihadists. In fact, the lot of them are Islamic supremacists, some waging jihad with their own bodies, some funding the jihads, all of them "conservative reactionaries" who want to fulfill the imperatives of their holy texts. Thus, the “non-violent” Islamist may not strap on a bomb and blow himself up on a crowded public conveyance, but in seeking to extend the sway of sharia, Islamism poses a threat to Western civilization that is equal to if not greater than the jihadists’.

My question for the esteemed historian: Can’t we do away with the poli-sci-speak and call the violent ones “jihadis”?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:35 | link | comments

House of Mouse grows some--maybe: Sounds like Disney has decided to take on Hamas after all for defaming the Disney Corp icon by turning him into a toxic, hateful, jihad-preaching pest. From Dis:

According to sources in Israel, Diane Disney Miller has affirmed that unspecified steps will be taken against Hamas. This is in response to the Palestinian group using a Mickey Mouse look-alike character, Farfour, to promote hatred of Israelis and Americans.

When Farfour first appeared on children's programming, there was international outrage at the message he was promoting. In response, Farfour was beaten and killed by a character portraying an Israeli policeman.

The Israeli consulate in Los Angeles had appealed to the Walt Disney corporation to invoke legal action based on this misuse of it's (sic) copyright.

While the Disney company has declined to respond, Walt Disney's daughter Diane has called the character 'evil' and stated that action will be taken.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:23 | link | comments

Kudos to the King: I’ve been meaning to commend Spain’s King Juan Carlos for having the cojones to do what so many have longed to do: tell that big mouth Hu Chavez to shut up.

You may not be aware that back in the day (the day long before 9/11, when I was still a lefty and Clinton and Yeltsin were the leaders) Canadian a cappella group Moxy Fruvous sang a tribute to the Spanish King who, according to them, had pulled a Mark Twain Prince and the Pauper-style switcheroo.

The times—and my political outlook—have changed, but the song remains as enjoyable as ever.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:59 | link | comments (2)

Thought I’d share: This mighty satisfying “give ‘em hell” letter to the editor of NOW Magazine, Toronto’s unbearably earnest/sanctimonious hard -left giveaway rag. The letter takes the paper to task for its unthinking devotion to every holy bovine in the barn:

I was reading your letters to the editor while on the bus. Yes, imagine that! I voted for the Conservatives and I take public transit.

Your enlightened readers have it all figured out. If only dummies like me just surrendered ourselves to the learned proletariat, the world would be a paradise.

So let me get this straight. Vote NDP, pay more tax, ride my bike to work, be pro-choice, hate all things American, assume no one could possibly be a terrorist, hate organized religion, sympathize with the incarcerated criminals who are victims of the system, embrace my inner homosexuality, reject meat, support immigration, hate big business.

Oh, what a world this would be!

Conor D. O'Hare

Toronto

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:45 | link | comments

Islam and Slavery 101: Here’s a history lesson you won’t learn in school or read in the mainstream media, courtesy Bill Warner and FrontPage Magazine. Read it and weep at our wilful blindness:

…Slavery is the fruit of Islamic duality. Mohammed, the master of dualism and submission, used slavery as a tool of jihad because it worked. Mohammed’s life was infused with slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of Islam. Mohammed, the white man, owned both male and female black slaves. His attitude was pure dualism.

The most disgusting thing about Islamic slavery is not that Muslims enslave others, but that we ignore it. The Muslims have been fed the Koran and the Sunna in their mother's milk. They are doing what is ethical according to Islam. In a strange way, Muslims are to be pitied. A Muslim is the first victim of Islam.

The criticism of whites because of their being involved in slavery is standard fair in the media and the universities. Try to find a university that even teaches about the killing of 120,000,000 Africans for Muslims to profit from the 24,000,000 slaves.

Blacks define themselves on the basis of slavery. They will not go beyond the white, Christian version of slavery. There is only one theory of history in the black community—the West African Limited Edition version of history. Blacks will not admit the broad scope of slave history. Hindu slavery? It never happened. White and European slavery? It never happened. Slavery on the East coast of Africa? It never happened. A massive slave trade through the Sahara into North Africa? It never happened. Black, eunuchs at the Medina mosque? It never happened. This incomplete history of slavery is what the taxpayers fund in the state universities.

How can black leaders ignore Islam's sacred violence in Africa? Why aren’t the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are ignorant and in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.

Blacks are dhimmis and serve Islam with their silence. There is a deep fear of Islam that makes them overlook and placate Islam. Arabs are the masters of blacks.

One thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ignorant to know it. Blacks and whites have a secret shame buried under the denial of being slaves inside Islam.

But the rest of the media and intellectuals line up as dhimmis, too. One of the marks of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.

They don't know about how jihad killed the 120,000,000 Africans, the 60,000,000 Christians, the 80,000,000 Hindus or the 10,000,000 Buddhists. Our intellectuals do not know about the Tears of Jihad (detailed in all of our books). That is a lot of death and ignorance—270,000,000 dead. Our intellectuals don't know, don't care and don't bother. They deny.

University Islamic studies never mention the Islamic political doctrine. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don’t teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force

The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism. Islamic ethics and politics have one set of rules for Muslims and another for kafirs. Our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics, the Golden Rule. We do not have two sets of laws and ethics, like Islam. Our intellectuals cannot explain what dualism has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future—civilizational annihilation.

Our intellectuals and the media have only one view of Islam—a glorious civilization. They have created the "terrorist", a bogus term based upon ignorance. And the "terrorist" is not even a "real" Muslim, but an extremist fundamentalist. All of these terms are based upon a profound ignorance of Islamic political doctrine.

Intellectuals cannot connect the dots of persecution of other intellectuals and artists today, such as Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, the Mohammed cartoon riots, and Daniel Pearl. Their persecution is part of a 1400 year Islamic tradition of keeping all intellectuals and artists in line with the doctrine of political Islam. But for our intellectuals, there is no history, no connection, no pattern, no doctrine of Islam. Their only doctrine is the doctrine of denial. These intellectuals write our textbooks. Then our tax dollars buy the books to feed the ignorance.

What explains the intellectuals’ silence and ignorance? The enormous violence of jihad has produced the psychology of the “molested child” syndrome. Intellectuals fear, apologize for, and placate the Islamic abusers, ignoring the violence of the past. Then they turn around and advise our politicians. The result is an ignorant populace who look to our intellectuals for guidance and find treachery and lies.

Forewarned, as they say, is forearmed, but our intellectuals have failed to warn us, thus rendering us virtually helpless to fend off the jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:55 | link | comments (1)

Annapolis booster: Rami Khouri, the Palestinian who edits Lebanon’s The Daily Star and who is a staple of the Globe and Mail’s comment page, says that, despite their obvious reluctance, Arab nations should be delighted to attend the upcoming Annapolis conference. Khouri hopes they will “see it as a moral obligation and constructive political endeavour to explore any possible means of moving toward a negotiated settlement.” And by that he means there are a lot more Arabs than Jews, and Annapolis will afford them the opportunity to flex their muscles in a show of unity (their mutual enmity for the alien Jewish entity being the only thing that seems to unite them).

Of course, they’ll have their work cut out for them, since the U.S. is so wishy-washy about peace, and since Israel has put up an immense stumbling block—a demand to be acknowledged for what it is:

NEW YORK -- There is something unconvincing, even insincere, about the tentative steps and gestures made by those trying to arrange the meeting in Annapolis, Md., next week to relaunch Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

It is hard to generate any real anticipation for a process in which the principal Israeli and Palestinian parties are politically weak, the hosts are imprecise and hesitant, the desired supporting Arab state actors play hard to get and the agenda is as clear as mushroom soup.

Those are all reasons why the Arabs invited to Annapolis should accept the invitation without reservations, go with enthusiasm and confidence and then use the gathering as a stage to demonstrate their will for a fair and negotiated peace. If Annapolis is a confused and murky process, the Arab world should respond to it with clarity and confidence.

Nowhere in the Annapolis process is there any decisiveness or conviction, any real sign of a burning desire to make concessions, compromises or genuine peace. The whole process smacks of self-serving U.S. expediency, rather than the sincerity of an honest mediator.

Washington seems to be trying to compensate for the heavy price it has paid in the world for three policies in recent years: ignoring the Arab-Israel issue for the administration's first six years, attacking Iraq and setting off a series of negative consequences in the region, and throwing its weight around by applying or threatening sanctions against governments it dislikes.

The United States now finds itself in the unenviable position of being criticized around the world and widely seen as a destructive power, yet not feared. It has lost much of its capacity to deter or cajole other countries. The sudden 180-degree turn on Arab-Israeli peacemaking is unconvincing precisely because it is so sudden, severe and out of character - almost maniacal in its intensity.

Nothing new can be seen in the preparations for the Annapolis meeting.

The principals are still dancing around the same old dynamics that have already failed several times in recent years - releasing some prisoners in Israeli jails, pledging to freeze Israeli settlement expansion, promoting Palestinian security forces and economic opportunity, and other such stalwarts and regulars of the post-Oslo attempt to make peace.

Israel has thrown in the new demand that the Palestinians formally acknowledge Israel as a "Jewish state," which complicates matters even further and makes agreement less likely. About 20 per cent of Israeli citizens are Palestinian Muslim and Christian Arabs, and their status in a specifically Jewish state would be unclear, as would be the rights of Palestinian refugees to a redress of grievance under existing UN resolutions.

Ah, yes, if only the Jews would back down from that one outrageous demand—to have a state that’s “Jewish”—all would be well.

My letter to the Globe:

Rami Khouri wants Arab nations to show up at the bargaining table at Annapolis even though Israel has thrown up a major stumbling block—a demand to be acknowledged as a “Jewish state.” According to Mr. Khouri, this is likely to be an all but insurmountable hurdle since 20 per cent of Israeli citizens are Muslim and Christian, and such an acknowledgement would somehow have a negative impact on their status.

Huh? I thought the whole point of a “two state solution” is that there would be two states—a Jewish one and a Palestinian one. And in the Jewish one at least, Israeli citizens—Jewish, Muslim and Christian—would continue to be accorded their full gamut of rights. How would that change with an acknowledgement that Israel is, after all, what it is?

Perhaps without meaning to, Mr. Khouri has exposed the real crux of the problem: not America’s lack of “enthusiasm” nor Israel’s intransigence, but the mindset which, for various reasons, has been unable to come to terms with the fact of Jewish sovereignty. Unless the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbours can find a way to override this mindset—their default setting—the "peace process" will remain permanently stalled.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments (1)

Submitting to Earth worship: Wasn’t it curmudgeonly antisemite G.K. Chesterton who suggested that, “When people cease to believe in something, they do not believe in nothing: they believe in anything”? As syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher writes, one of the “anythings” that’s been embraced so ardently in our time, especially in post-Christian Europe, is the Church of Global Climate Change. It’s a pagan cult whose Vatican City is in Turtle Bay, and whose God is Al-lah Gore:

Last week, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, issued a new warning on global warming that began with this sentence: "We all agree. Climate change is real, and we humans are its chief cause ... we are on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act."

Just a few days later the United Nations released a new report in which it confessed its previous estimate of AIDS cases worldwide was inflated by more than 6 million sick people. In India alone, the number of AIDS patients estimated by the United Nations dropped by more than half, from 6 million to 3 million.

"They've finally got caught with their pants down," Dr. Jim Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and a former staffer at the World Health Organization, told The Associated Press.

The old, false U.N. numbers were the result of an obviously bad methodology, especially in India; prevalence rates among women in urban clinics were imputed to the population as a whole, thereby oversampling AIDS-prone prostitutes, addicts and people with multiple sexual partners.

So why did the U.N. scientists go with the bad data? According to professor Chin, U.N. officials were reluctant to admit fewer people were infected because that might translate into less funding to fight AIDS, which continues to devastate millions worldwide.

They fudged the data in order to inspire the masses to good actions, in other words.

As far as I can tell, the United Nations is like just about any other large bureaucratic institution -- a mixed body of people and ideals that does some good and is at least as susceptible to corruption as any other human thing. But in Europe, faith in the United Nations is reaching biblical proportions.

Which is why when the U.N. secretary-general reaches for the language of science to establish an absolute truth (global warming is a human-caused catastrophe) grounded in an obvious falsehood ("we all agree"), I find it creepy.

The statements have the form of scientific assertions, but they are clothed in a spirit of dogmatic certainty that is alien to the culture of scientific endeavor. A climate science that cannot predict the weather a month from now may have strong evidence that global warming exists, is human caused and will be a catastrophe, but it cannot possibly have yet produced a proof about which "all agree."

And yet "the masses," aka the public, must be goaded into right action by their betters' judgment.

Thus, a new faith system is emerging in the world, centered in Europe, but with outposts among the educated in many parts of the world. In his new book "Challenging Nature," Dr. Lee M. Silver, a Princeton molecular biologist, calls this emerging cultural system "post-Christian." While Christian-based cultures see human beings as uniquely moral beings given dominion over the Earth by God (hence the moral qualms about human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, but not about genetically engineered plants or animal research), post-Christians "are more worried about the flora and fauna," notes New York Times science columnist John Tierney wryly. Frankenfoods, overpopulation, and technological progress created by our invasive species threaten as much fear as they inspire hope.

Post-Christian faith is rooted in fear that "Mother Nature" is weak, vulnerable, and yet full of violent retributive possibilities that must be assuaged by great sacrifices humbly offered by people under the influence of the new priesthood of international regulators.

The United Nations is now the arbiter of truth and our only hope of saving the planet…

There’s only one rational response to such terrifying irrationality: God help us all.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:32 | link | comments (2)

One Yerushalayim, indivisible: Back in July I sent an email to then Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter McKay, expressing my dismay at Canada’s refusal to list “Jerusalem, Israel” as a place of birth on a Canadian passport. Today I received the following reply (my bolds):

The Office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, has forwarded to my predecessor, the Honourable Peter G. MacKay, on July 12, 2007, your email concerning Canada's policy on Jerusalem. I regret the delay in replying to you.

 

Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of Jerusalem, nor Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Canada believes that the status of Jerusalem is a key final status issue that should be resolved as a comprehensive negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This policy is consistent with a number of United Nations resolutions that, since the 1947 Partition Plan, have reaffirmed the special status of Jerusalem.

 

The Government of Canada's passport policy stipulates that where an applicant is born in Jerusalem after May 14, 1948, the place of birth is to be shown in the Canadian passport as "Jerusalem" alone and not entered in conjunction with any country name. Canadian policy with respect to Jerusalem was established as such because the status of Jerusalem has not been definitely determined internationally. Passport Canada's policy with respect to Jerusalem reflects the Government of Canada's Middle East policy.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concern.

 

Sincerely,

 

Maxime Bernier

Minister of Foreign Affairs

 

I find it more than a little alarming that Canada considers Jerusalem to have been “unilaterally annexed” when in fact what occurred is that Israel was forced to fight yet another war it could not afford to lose and, as a result, gained control over that portion of Jerusalem that had previously been ruled by Jordan. During the Hashemites’ relatively brief reign there, from ’48 until ’67, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, Jewish gravestones were toppled and used to make latrines, and scores of synagogues, some centuries old, were destroyed.

Jerusalem does indeed have a special status—it is considered holy by three religions—and by now it should be amply clear that the Israelis, unlike the Arabs, have done an estimable job of ensuring that all three faiths have access to their holy places. One can only recoil in horror at the prospect of a city “divided” in a vain attempt to appease Arabs—who, make no mistake, won't settle for being in charge of only part of the city they call Al Quds—and to satisfy the stipulations of an outdated UN resolution.

The sooner Canada and other nations come to their senses and recognize Jerusalem as the undisputed, undivided capital of Israel, the better.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:20 | link | comments

Oblivious to the obvious: A Toronto Star editorial deplores the harsh way the Wahhabis have dealt with an uppity woman:

In a brutal ruling that mocks all justice, Saudi Arabia's grandly named Supreme Judicial Council has just imposed a six-month jail term and 200 lashes on "the Qatif girl," a 19-year-old gang-rape victim.

Her crime? Being in the car of a man who was not a relative, then daring to publicly demand justice after she was raped. The judges apparently view that as "illegal mingling" and trying to "influence the judiciary through the media." At first, the victim was sentenced to 90 lashes, and her attackers to between 10 months and five years for kidnapping, not rape. Then, on appeal, the court imposed an even harsher sentence on her, when it gave the "kidnappers" two to nine years.

Ottawa has rightly denounced this ruling as "barbaric." It reeks of reprisal, not justice. Ottawa should urge King Abdullah, who claims to be reforming the legal system, where judicial whim trumps natural justice, to void the ruling and drop all charges against the victim.

This sends an ugly signal that Saudi rape victims should not press charges unless they are ready to be victimized a second time, in court.

Wrong, oh Star editorial writer. It reeks not of reprisal but of sharia, a religious law that systematically victimizes, diminishes and oppresses women.

Update: Foggy Bottom is as oblivious as the Star.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

Extry, extry: U of T academic sez suicide bombers not necessarily motivated by religion, need "empathy." From the Globe and Mail:

Suicide bombers are not crazy and indeed are often driven primarily by motivators other than religious zeal, argues a University of Toronto sociology professor in a new research paper he says is likely to prove controversial.

In a paper published in the November issue of Contexts, a journal of the American Sociological Association published by University of California Press, Robert Brym argues that the most effective way of developing a workable strategy for dealing with such assaults is first understanding the assailant's point of view.

Dr. Brym's work focused primarily on the Middle East conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, a topic he said he was at first reluctant to pursue - despite completing his bachelor's degree in Jerusalem - because it was so sensitive. However, in 2003, he was on a PhD selection committee when he came across a Palestinian student looking to do research on suicide bombers. Eventually, he began working with the student and an Israeli student on the topic. The Israeli student interviewed counterterrorism officials; the Palestinian student interviewed militants.

Dr. Brym's research suggests that empathy, rather than aggression, is the more effective tool for combatting suicide bombings.

"It is controversial," Dr. Brym said in an interview. "But ... our interviews led to the conclusion that much of decisions [regarding suicide bombing] involve retaliation. It is possible for the Israeli state to suppress the other side, but given the high motivation of both sides, they find workarounds."

Dr. Brym pointed to the decrease of suicide bombings in Israel over the past few years, adding that the number of rockets launched during the same period has shot up.

Dr. Brym was quick to point out that empathy doesn't have to entail "warm and fuzzy feelings" for the other side, but rather meaningful rewards and goals, such as releasing Palestinian tax dollars and working toward a two-state solution.

Intertwined with Dr. Brym's thesis is a parallel argument that suicide bombers are not necessarily driven by religion. In the case of the Middle East conflict, he says, notions of martyrdom and holy war began to gain popularity after secular approaches failed. He highlights another study that found fewer than half of suicide bombers between 1980 and 2003 (for whom ideological background information could be found) were identifiably religious...

My letter to the Globe:

 

I might be inclined to accept Dr. Robert Brym’s conclusions about suicide bombers “not necessarily” being motivated by religion if not for a number of factors that appear to seriously undermine his thesis.

 

First and foremost, the majority of these bombers are under the impression that they are waging a jihad against non-believers, a concept deeply rooted in their religious texts.

 

Second, prior to self-detonation, the bombers usually prepare a video in which they iterate their belief in “martyrdom”—another religious concept. Then there is that "added incentive"—the promise that, post-martyrdom, the bomber will be rewarded with his own personal harem of virgins up in Paradise. That, too, is a deeply-held religious belief.

 

Finally, in the case of Palestinian suicide terrorists and those who support them, there is the desire to, once and for all, get rid of the Jewish state, the only infidel-ruled polity in an all-Islamic region.

 

Given all that, Dr. Brym’s call to “empathize” with terrorists and downplay the religious underpinnings of their actions seems bizarre, to say the least, and could have the unintended consequence of making an already fraught situation even worse.

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

A: Suicidal*: Q: What do you call people who arm their enemies?  From Reuters:

Israel approved the transfer of a shipment of armoured vehicles and ammunition to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's security forces ahead of a U.S.-led peace conference, Israeli officials said today.

The shipment, which includes ammunition and 25 lightly armoured vehicles, will be used in the restive West Bank city of Nablus in an attempt to bolster Abbas against Hamas Islamists who seized control of the Gaza Strip in June.

"Within the framework of the Israeli gestures intended to bolster the Palestinian security forces for the prevention of terror, Israel has agreed to allow the Palestinians to receive 25 armoured vehicles for Nablus," an Israeli government official said.

Israel has provided earlier shipments of vehicles and ammunition in coordination with the U.S. government and earlier this month allowed more than 300 members of the Palestinian National Security forces to deploy in Nablus as part of a Palestinian campaign to improve law and order.

"In the event that additional Palestinian forces will be deployed in other Palestinian cities, Israel will favourably consider the entry of 25 more vehicles for security purposes," the official said.

*also short-sighted, deranged, clueless, imbecilic and in the grip of the same kind of wishful thinking which resulted in the Oslo calamity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:18 | link | comments

Guess who’s coming to dinner?: Oh, goody. No Chin Assad—the guy whose nuclear installation was obliterated by Israel some weeks ago—has been invited to attend the Annapolis shindig. And dollars to donuts the folks who did the heavy lifting for Western civ. by taking out No Chin’s nukes-to-be will get strong-armed into giving him back the Golan. For the sake of lasting “peace,” of course. From YNet News:

The United States issued formal invitations to some 40 nations and organizations on Tuesday ahead of the upcoming Annapolis peace conference. Officials in Jerusalem and Ramallah confirmed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had received their invites.  

The list of confirmed invitees also includes the Arab League and Arab countries such as Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Mauritania, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Members of the international diplomatic quartet have also been given invitations. These include the UN, The EU, Russia, and Mideast envoy Tony Blair.

Other countries who may attend the conference are France, Germany, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy, China, Norway, Turkey, Vatican, Brazil and Australia.

The US State Department confirmed the invitations had been sent out for next week's conference, though no agenda has been set and no schedule has been released for the meetings, which the US hope will kick-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said US ambassadors around the world had received a detailed list of instructions for issuing the invitations, which were extended to countries involved in the peace process, Arab nations and organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank…

Oy vey! Talk about the Jews walking eyes wide open into an ambush.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:30 | link | comments

Melanie nails it: Melanie Phillips says there’s only one possible “two-state solution”—and it won’t be realized by sitting across a table from faux secular, faux moderate Abbas:

The Annapolis conference (meeting?) is grotesque because Israel is being dragooned into ‘negotiating’ and making ‘painful sacrifices’ with an Arab side which is quite explicit that Israel should not exist at all (see chief negotiator Saeb Erekat’s statement, reported in my earlier post, that the Palestinians will never agree to Israel remaining a Jewish state). The very fact that America is forcing this meeting to take place regardless of this position is to legitimise and thus strengthen the terrorist Palestinian entity that has never stopped trying to wipe Israel off the map.

The apparent belief that a Palestinian state would a) rescue Mahmoud Abbas’s ‘moderate’ Fatah and b) be a bulwark against the threat from Iran is risible. There is only one thing which is currently preventing Hamas from taking over the West Bank just as it took over Gaza. That is the presence in the West Bank of Israeli troops, which are acting against Hamas and saving Abbas’s skin. If Israel were to withdraw tomorrow, Hamas would take over and Abbas would be history. A Palestinian state in the West Bank would turn into Hamastan and, just as in Gaza, would become a proxy for Iran and quite possibly also an incubator for al Qaeda. If no Palestinian state is established, Abbas will be history anyway. Either way, this is not good news for the region.

If the moderate Arab states want to avoid this terrible development on their doorstep — and they do — there is only one way forward. Jordan must legally take control of the West Bank that it formerly illegally occupied, thus subsuming the Palestinians into the state that was always effectively ‘Palestine’ and finally bringing about the two-state solution.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:09 | link | comments

Tee hee: On the next mirth-provoking episode of Ceeb sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie, “A Canadian Security Intelligence Service agent visits town, arousing suspicions around the mosque.”

Don’t you just hate when that happens?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:58 | link | comments

Kay gives ‘em hell: I was going to write up my impressions of the “Combating Hatred Conference,” the day-long whinge-fest I attended last week that provided a forum for community “activists,” human rights types, racism industry professionals and other lefties to rage about Canada’s inherent suckiness and racism, but Jonathan Kay has saved me the trouble. (Thanks, Jonathan.) Kay—the token eee-vil conservative on one of the event's five, count 'em, five, panels—describes how he himself was accused of being a racist and was pilloried for expressing views that were out of line with the conference’s group-think. (So much so that I couldn’t help thinking at the time he was lucky no one had thought to bring tar and feathers). What he doesn’t emphasize is that he gave as good as he got—and then some. It was thrilling—no, exhilarating—to see him stand up to the bullies.

The only thing I would add to Kay’s superb deconstruction: my “favourite” speaker of the day. Kay missed her because, understandably, he skedaddled once his panel had finished. This woman, employed as a racism “consultant” by the feds, gave a Power Point presentation, replete with bullets, charts and jargon, in order to convince attendees (many of whom likely didn't need much convincing) that the reason certain, ahem, immigrants turn to extremism is because we here in Canada engage in what she called “identity stripping.” That is, we divest them of their identity and, well, what else is a poor, lost lad with no discernable identity to do but try to restore what was taken from him by plotting to blow up landmarks in the nation which gave him and his loved ones refuge? (Okay, I embellish a bit—she didn’t mention the part about blowing up landmarks.)

Makes sense to me—but only in the bizarro alternate reality of “racism consultants” who wilfully dismiss the jihad and prefer to blame its targets for the whole blooming holy war.

In the real world, Canada remains committed to the dogma of multiculturalism—the exact opposite of “identity stripping”—and lads the world over are turning to “extremism” not because they’ve been “stripped” of their identity, but because, if anything, their sense of who they are is too strong, overwhelming, even.

Also, "extremism" is de rigueur  if you want to hook up in Heaven with your own personal harem of luscious virgins.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:32 | link | comments (1)

Condi, Warrior Zealot: Frank Gaffney, the guy who produced a doc about the tensions between moderate and extremist Muslims that was all but buried by PBS, opines that Condi Rice has become a “zealot”—and a dangerous one, at that. From JWR:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is behaving like a zealot. In her ever-more-rash pursuit of a Palestinian state, she is exhibiting the syndrome defined by the philosopher George Santana, as one who redoubles her efforts upon losing sight of the objective.

Let's recall: The objective laid out by President Bush, when he decided in June 2002 to support the creation of a homeland for the Palestinian people, was to provide a stable, secure neighbor for Israel, committed to leaving peaceably with the Jewish State.

Mr. Bush explicitly preconditioned such support on: an end to Palestinian terror; a Palestinian leadership that was not tainted by ties to terrorism; and the elimination of the infrastructure in Palestinian areas that enables such behavior. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States was in the business of eliminating terrorist-sponsoring regimes, not creating them.

Now, however, it is crystal clear that the only outcome from Condi Rice's idée fixe — namely that she will convene a Middle East peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy for the purpose of extracting from Israel the territorial concessions needed rapidly to establish a Palestinian state — has nothing to do with the original Bush vision. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the best that can be hoped for from such a meeting is failure. For success will result in a new safe-haven for terror that is a mortal threat not only for Israel, but for the United States, as well.

Unfortunately, even the failure of Condi's Folly at Annapolis is likely to be a very bad outcome. To the extent that her actions are raising unwarranted expectations on the part of Palestinians and their Arab friends, past practice suggests it will translate into a pretext for new violence against Israel. That will be especially true if, as is also predictable, the Israelis are blamed for the outcome for not being sufficiently willing — in the face of Palestinian intractability — to make what are euphemistically called "painful" moves for peace. Another way to describe such moves are as reckless concessions that are certain to jeopardize Israel's security, and quite possibly ours.

After all, it is only reasonable to expect the West Bank to follow the trajectory of the Gaza Strip and, before it, southern Lebanon — both of which Israel abandoned to her foes, only to have those territories become staging grounds for attacks on Israel and secure incubators for terror against us. Among those operating from such areas are Islamofascist terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the newest addition to the State Department's list of such entities.

Condi Rice is nonetheless demanding that Israel now relinquish the West Bank and East Jerusalem to yet another terrorist organization: Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah. To be sure, the Secretary of State would have us believe that Fatah is no such thing. In fact, the entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Abbas' mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace and effective counterweight to Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion. Treating Fatah as the cornerstone of American diplomacy and demands on Israel is nothing less than perilous and irresponsible…

Unadulterated insanity. Condi is like the Alec Guinness character in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai--self-righteous and inflexible, and determined to build the best damned bridge ever, even if it ends up benefitting the enemy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments

Why do jihadis become jihadis?:  A Princeton professor who’s studied the matter concludes it has little to do with a person’s impoverished background and much to do with the desire to advance a particular agenda. From the American:

…The evidence suggests that terrorists care about influencing political outcomes. They are often motivated by geopolitical grievances. To under­stand who joins terrorist organizations, instead of asking who has a low salary and few opportunities, we should ask: Who holds strong political views and is confident enough to try to impose an extrem­ist vision by violent means? Most terrorists are not so desperately poor that they have nothing to live for. Instead, they are people who care so fervently about a cause that they are willing to die for it.

You would think by now that would be obvious. How disturbing to think it ain’t.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:38 | link | comments (2)

Fascist fashionistas:  Looking for the perfect holiday gift for your mother/sister/wife/daughter/best chick friend? Look no further--here it is. From the Tehran Times:

TEHRAN -- The first volume of the series “Atlas of Iranian Costumes” covering the subject of head coverings is to come out soon.

The volume named “Atlas of Iranian Head-Covering” is part of a wider piece of research on Iranian costumes which is being carried out by the Anthropology Research Center of the Cultural Heritage, Tourism, and Handicrafts Organization (CHTHO), the Persian service of CHN reported on Sunday.

The book details the factors which have been significant in the development of the various types of head-covering used in each region of the country including climate, religion and ethnicity, head of the Social Anthropology Department of the center explained.

Minu Karimnia, supervisor of the project, added “The complete atlas of costumes will be in three volumes –- head coverings, clothing and footwear -- the first part of which is now complete.”

She went on to say, “The entire project encompasses the costumes of Iranian people in 25 provinces and 564 urban, rural, and nomadic regions. It studies the dress of men and women in each region with respect to age, job, and season.

She continued, “The series includes the results of research undertaken on the colors used in clothing and the ways in which it has been accessorized by different types of decoration and jewelry. The work also covers the traditional habits and beliefs of dressing in particular costumes for special social ceremonies.

“In addition, the series reviews expressions and words related to costumes and locations where specific clothing was found,” she concluded.

The project began in 1999 under the supervision of Minu Karimnia and with the help of nine costume designers.

Along with input, no doubt, from more than one pushy, misogynistic mullah.

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

Campus protest: For far too long the University of Toronto has been a flaming hotbed of anti-Zionism--both in the classroom and as the site of an annual anti-Israel bash, Israeli Apartheid Week. A group called Scholars for Peace in the Middle East is taking steps to try to douse at least a portion of the flames. Here’s the media release describing its efforts:

SPME FACULTY AT UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO WEIGHING INTERVENTIONS WITH ALLEGATIONS OF ANTI-ISRAEL POLEMICS IN CLASSROOMS AND IN UNIVERSITY PROGRAMMING
November 17, 2007

After contacts from students and faculty at the University of Toronto, SPME is working with faculty members to decide what actions to take after faculty have tried unsuccessfully to meet with administrators to deal with allegations of anti-Israel polemics being taught in coursework there, as well as a number of anti-Israel events being planned to be offered on campus where there is concerned that there will be anti-Israel incitement. Despite a considerable group of 73 faculty members registering complaints, the University administration has been unresponsive and refused to meet. Interested University of Toronto faculty members should contact Prof. Eldad Zacksenhaus, Associate Professor of Medicine at eldad.zacksenhaus@utoronto.ca

Good luck, SPME. Looks like you’ve got your work cut out for you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:57 | link | comments

Striking a blow for free speech: After a documentary was aired exposing extremism in British mosques, police got tough—on the producers, not the extremists.  

Craven dhimmis.

A just-released report vindicates the broadcast. From the Telegraph:

Channel 4 has been vindicated by the media watchdog Ofcom after police complained about an investigative programme that exposed extremism in British mosques.

West Midland's police had faced criticism for targeting the producers of the show rather than the controversial preachers depicted in it.

Ofcom added fuel to that debate by praising Undercover Mosque as a "legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest."

The watchdog added: "Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity.

"On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context."

Police claimed that the Dispatches programme had misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

Following today's ruling, the Channel 4 called the police's actions "perverse" and said they had, in some people's eyes, given "legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate".

The programme featured undercover recordings from speakers alleged to be homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and condemnatory of non-Muslims.

Excerpts from preachers and teachers included "Allah created the woman deficient" and "by the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her (young girls) to wear hijab and if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her".

Other statements included "take that homosexual and throw him off the mountain" and "whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else - kill him in the Islamic state".

Police initially launched an investigation into whether criminal offences had been committed at the mosques and other organisations featured in the programme.

They then said that it considered offences may have been committed by those involved in the production and broadcast of the programme, specifically in stirring up racial hatred.

After the Crown Prosecution Service advised that the prospect of conviction was unlikely, police referred Undercover Mosque to Ofcom, complaining that intense editing had misrepresented those featured in the programme.

Ofcom also rejected the 364 viewers' complaints it received after the programme was broadcast, which it said appeared to be part of a campaign.

I believe it’s called The Islamist Whinge and Seethe Disinformation Campaign.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:17 | link | comments

Name that tune: Hu and his little pal Moo seem to be going out of their way to hook up with each other—Hu is in Tehran today, his fourth visit in two years.

What are these two up to? In can name it three words: no damned good.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments

War by other means: Egypt couldn’t defeat Israel militarily, so it signed a “peace” treaty and got on with the crucial task of undermining the Jewish state (and the Jewish people) by becoming the world’s foremost purveyor of Judenhass. By P. David Hornik in FontPage Magazine:

It was thirty years ago today that the then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat first visited Israel, publicly launching a diplomatic process that led to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. At present, though, Egypt is “the Arab world’s biggest center of publishing anti-Semitic literature.” So says a new report by the Tel Aviv-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

This literature that Egypt puts out, says the Center, “is marketed across the Arab and Muslim world, distributed through the Internet, and sold every year at the Cairo International Book Fair.” The Egyptian government, “despite its ability to impose strict censorship,” allows all this to go on.

Seven of these books were purchased, apparently by someone from the Center, at the Cairo fair that was held this year from January 24 to February 4. The books, published in Cairo over the past four years, “recycle lies, fabrications, and anti-Semitic myths rooted in classical European and Islamic anti-Semitism.”

First there’s The Nature of the Jews [as reflected] in the Torah and the Talmud by Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa. The front cover sets the tone: a ship called World Zionism is sailing the globe while Jewish snakes crawl over the various continents (the back cover is even more grisly). The author holds a PhD in comparative religious research from Al-Azhar University, considered the leading center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world.

The book begins by explaining that “the Jews hate the Muslims and hate all the peoples and nations, since the Devil has whispered in their ears saying they are the smart and the clever, while others are unclean beasts.” A later, typical passage states: “Almost all the revolutions, coups d’état, and wars that ever happened in the world were brought about by the Jews, instructed by the falsified Torah, the Talmud, and ultimately The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. [These texts] all incite [the Jews] to eliminate non-Jews, using all means to achieve their goal: ruling the world from Jerusalem….”

Then there’s Israel’s Follies and the Lies of Zionism: Religion and State by Ibrahim Abu Dah, who heads the Egyptian oppositionist newspaper Al-Siyasi al-Misri. This time the front-cover snakes, instead of crawling all over the globe, emerge from a Star of David containing pictures of Zionist, Israeli, and Jewish notables.

The Talmud, says Abu Dah, tells Jews that all the resources of the Earth belong solely to them, to be seized by them while freely killing any and all non-Jews. Abu Dah, though, provides hope: he sees signs in the Koran and even in Jewish holy books that the demise of the state of Israel is near.

The same Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa has also offered another of the many Arabic editions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This one’s front cover varies the zoological content, showing, instead of Jewish snakes (an omnipresent image in the Arab world), a Jewish octopus enwrapping the Earth with its tentacles. The back cover informs readers that “the entire contents [of the Protocols] appear in the Talmud, written by the Jews themselves” and “our sole motive for publishing them is to warn the world about the Jewish threat.”

Muhammad Younes Hashem’s The Jews and the New Crusaders: The Religious and Political Controversy targets not only Jews but also Christians and the West. The author, a researcher, contends that “the Jews control the Western countries and have formed an anti-Islamic alliance with ‘Christian imperialism.’”

Publisher Dr. Huda al-Koumi, who holds a PhD in dramaturgy, explains in her Foreword that “the Jews keep using the most despicable weapons in conflicts with their enemies. They use women, sex, drugs, bribes, forgery, schemes, and mix drugs into food, beverages, agricultural farms, water, and anything [else].”

The cover of Dr. Baha al-Amir’s The Divine Inspiration and Its Reversal, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion shows Orthodox Jews praying in a sinister blood-red light. The back cover informs readers that “The Protocols is the centuries-old scheme of the Jews, implemented for hundreds of years. It is transmitted by the snake’s head from generation to generation and has led to the downfall of one nation after another since the 5^th century BC.” The book’s text often invokes the Koran in making the case that the Jews seek to corrupt the whole world.

The Children of Israel and the Lie of Semitism was written by Dr. Ayid Taha Nassef, chief of the Information Center for National and Strategic Studies and Research in Egypt. The cover shows a Star of David superimposed on a hapless globe, and the text—among, of course, many other things—says that “the recent [persecutions] against the Jews in Germany were carried out by Hitler, who burned thousands of them in mass incinerators due to their despicable acts.”

Finally there’s Secrets of the Bastions of the False Messiah in the Hidden Island Triangle: The Wandering Jew and the Bermuda [Triangle] Region. This work is by Muhammad Issa Daoud, a famous, bestselling author in the Arab world.

The book develops the thesis that the Bermuda Triangle is home to Al-Masikh al-Dajjal, known in Muslim tradition as a repulsive false messiah of the Jews who will fight the Mahdi at the end of time. Author Daoud contends that in the 1990s Israel and the United States shot down Egyptian planes in the Bermuda Triangle and that the Zionist- and American-dominated world media covered up the crimes.

The lurid and insane fantasies that fill these books are genocidal in import. Both stemming from and feeding a frenzy of hatred, they hammer home again and again the message to millions of Arab and Muslim readers that Jews and the state of Israel are the source of all evil. As the Center notes, “the anti-Semitic myths, lies, and drivel take hold in the consciousness of those exposed to such literature . . . and lay the foundations for acts of violence against [Jews].”

That Egypt is the fountainhead of this toxicity does not prevent it from receiving large annual outlays of U.S. aid and being assiduously courted by both the U.S. and Israeli governments as an agent of peace. Ignoring the real nature of the Egyptian regime and society is both cowardly and a betrayal of the Jewish and other victims of hatred.

Sarcasm alert: So good to know they’re “moderates.” Can you imagine the kind of poison they’d be spewing if they were “extremists”?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments

Democracy on hold: The Palestinian state—the one that’s already up and running and ruled by the Hashemites—was supposed to be moving, albeit slowly, toward democracy. But, go figure, the project seems to have run into a bit of a snag. By Mark MacKinnon in the Globe and Mail:

AMMAN — The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was supposed to take a big step tomorrow toward becoming the democracy that both its people and its rulers say they want it to be.

But instead of a breakthrough vote that might have seen this desert state emerge from a long history of one-man rule, the parliamentary elections will again return a slate of pro-government deputies with few duties other than to meekly pass King Abdullah II's decrees into law - just like every election held since this developing nation of 5.6 million people first began its slow crawl toward democracy 18 years ago.

Terrified by the rise to power of Hamas in the neighbouring Palestinian territories, and shaken by the chaos in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region, Jordan in recent years has postponed a series of planned electoral reforms that were supposed to have been in place by now, and instead moved to further tighten controls on dissent and free speech.

In the past few months alone, the government has barred some of its harshest critics from running for office, sparred with election observers over access to polling stations and derailed plans to open the country's first privately owned, independent television channel.

While the country's emboldened Islamist movement is crying foul - and some liberals accuse the government of using the spectre of extremism to quash all opposition - much of the secular elite is quietly supporting King Abdullah's go-slow approach to democracy, fearing that too much openness could expose Jordan to the kind of chaos that has engulfed its neighbours.

"People say, 'What kind of democracy is there in Iraq? What kind of democracy is there in Palestine?' And if you ask them what kind of democracy they want for Jordan, they can't answer that," said Roula Attar, director of the Amman office of the National Democratic Institute, a democracy promotion group funded by the United States government.

As in the past, the 110-seat parliament will be filled according to a Byzantine electoral code that allocates a disproportionate number of seats to sparsely populated rural areas of the country that are controlled by tribes traditionally loyal to the king. Women, Christians and ethnic minorities are also guaranteed seats, while urban centres such Amman and neighbouring Zarqa, where both the liberal and Islamist opposition movements have their base, are severely under-represented.

It's the Islamists that the government fears most. Jordan's best organized political movement, the Islamic Action Front, is linked to Hamas through the international Muslim Brotherhood. Its members claim that if there was ever a free and fair election here, they would repeat the success Hamas had at the ballot box last year, when the Palestinian faction shocked even its own supporters by winning control of the Palestinian government.

That won't happen in Jordan this time out, because the IAF is only half-heartedly taking part in the elections, fielding just 22 candidates. The movement, which won 17 seats in the last parliament after fielding 30 candidates in the 2003 vote, says there's no point running a full slate, since the system is gerrymandered to ensure they never get close to power.

"The government is afraid of the Islamic movement. To them, Islam equals terrorism. That's a motto for them, and the U.S. and the EU are supporting this because they want to keep real Muslims away from government," said Jihad Ali, a campaign worker for the IAF who last week helped organize an election rally in the Jabal al-Hussein refugee camp, a collection of ramshackle concrete buildings in the heart of Amman that is home to some 30,000 Palestinians.

Jordan's government is hailed in the West but reviled by many Islamists around the region for policies that include a 13-year-old peace treaty with Israel and tacit support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003…

The Islamists won’t rest until the Hashemites and all the other “moderates” (also infidels) submit to their old time religion. And, as demonstrated by the examples of Hitler, Hezbollah and Hamas, democracy is a great way to gain the power they need in order to prevail.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

The li’lest jihadi: The cries continue to ring out—“bring young Omar home!” He was so young, so guileless when, at age 15 he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier and was scooped up and shipped off to Gitmo, where he’s languished ever since

Ah, yes, a poor innocent embroiled in a war he didn’t understand.

Or was he? Last night, 60 Minutes showed footage of Omar which cast him in a far more sinister light. From the Globe and Mail:

CBS News has broadcast shocking new footage of a Canadian terrorism suspect allegedly building bomb timers and planting land mines while he was a 15-year-old militant hoping to take on American soldiers in Afghanistan.

The footage, some of it shot on a night-vision camera by alleged al-Qaeda fighters before it was seized by U.S. forces after a deadly raid, leaves a more sinister impression of Omar Khadr than the widely circulated photo of him as a boy benignly smiling at the camera.

That teenaged terrorism suspect's image has been reproduced the world over since he was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 and sent to the Guantanamo Bay prison experiment on allegations of killing an American soldier.

The military has long been planning to show the seized videotape during trial, but proceedings have repeatedly stalled before the evidence could be aired.

Screen capture taken from 60 minutes website showing video of Omar Khadr

Beyond the new footage, the 12-minute 60 Minutes piece contained few surprises for Canadians who have been following the case for years.

There are more remarks from fundamentalist Islamist Khadr family, whose televised statements will once again do little to build public support for the groups and politicians who are arguing that Canada should adopt a principled stance and lobby to repatriate Mr. Khadr from Guantanamo Bay.

A U.S. military official who launched the prosecution described that case against Omar Khadr as strong, but circumstantial. “I think it's fair to say that no person saw him actually throw the grenade,” retired general John Altenburg told 60 Minutes.

A producer for the news program, George Crile had a long-standing relationship with the Khadr family and 60 Minutes dug up footage shot just a few weeks before 9/11, when the patriarch of the family made anti-American remarks from Afghanistan.

“I'm not a terrorist,” Ahmed Said Khadr says in the footage. But he adds that the Arab Afghan mujahedeen like him were enemies of the United States: “It's looks like after we have removed the Russian empire we will have to be ending up removing also the American empire.”

By 2003, the elder Mr. Khadr was alleged to be a senior al-Qaeda member. He was killed in a battle against the Pakistani army in 2003.

It was he who enrolled his sons into al-Qaeda training camps, and sent his second youngest, Omar, then aged 15, to the front lines in 2002. U.S. soldiers say he threw a deadly grenade that killed a soldier during a battle, prompting them to shoot him three times before giving him medical care.

Five years later, legal proceedings in “Gitmo” have repeatedly stalled against Omar Khadr, and the tall 21-year-old prisoner in Cuba now bears faint resemblance to the boy filmed in the 60 Minutes video, caught smiling and laughing as he prepares for war.

Omar's younger brother Karim was also shown in the piece. The footage was shot in 2004, just weeks after he returned to Canada from Pakistan. He survived, but was paralyzed by the deadly battle that killed his father.

In that footage, a 14-year-old Karim Khadr talks about how he wanted to become a martyr so he could be doted on in the afterlife by dozens of fragrant-smelling virgins.

He adds that he expected that Omar would want to resume battles against Americans when he gets out of Guantanamo Bay. “When he's all right again he'll find them again … and take his revenge,” he said.

I have a great idea for a new reality show, one which is bound to be more titillating and surprising than The Osbournes or Nick and Jessica—Khadr Family Values.

The Ceeb could run it Wednesday nights, following acclaimed sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:03 | link | comments

Flying pig moment in the Globe and Mail: An article by Carolynne Wheeler—the female half of MacKinnon-Wheeler, the Globe’s dyspeptic tag team of Israel-bashers—that isn’t nasty, niggling, negative or nugatory; that—what the heck’s going on here?—actually has something nice to say about the Jewish state and the opportunities it affords its Arab citizens:

KIBBUTZ GAATON, ISRAEL — The story could have been drawn straight from the Billy Elliot movie script: A young boy who was first transfixed by ballet on television, and would dance secretly in his room at night, practising what he learned from films and Internet videos.

But Ayman Saffah is a young Palestinian-Israeli - as he prefers to be known - from a small village in the Galilee, and young men in traditional Arab Muslim villages don't dance ballet, at least not publicly. And so Mr. Saffah's path to a remote ballet school at Kibbutz Gaaton, the preparatory school for Israel's prestigious Kibbutz Contemporary Dance Company, has been riddled with stops and starts.

"I always wanted to dance," says the young-looking 17-year-old, wearing jeans and sneakers, a pair of sunglasses dangling at his neck. "[But] when I saw it on the TV or Internet, I saw many, many girls dance, but I never saw boys. So I thought I couldn't do it."

Instead, for years, Mr. Saffah contented himself with learning the debka, a traditional folk dance, in his nearby village of Kafr Yassif. After classes, he would wait outside, peering through the window at the girls' ballet class that followed to see what poses they learned, then rushing home to try them himself.

Ayman Saffah, 17, lives in a traditional Arab Muslim village in the Galilee and studies dance at a remote ballet school at Kibbutz Gaaton. (Ilan Mizrahi for The Globe and Mail)

At 14, he mustered the courage to ask his mother for money to buy his first pair of simple black ballet shoes.

"The salesman asked me, 'Who are you buying these shoes for?' And I told him they were for me. He was wondering why I would do that - to him it was unusual, and I knew that," Mr. Saffah remembers.

A year later he enrolled in the village ballet class, and soon found himself confessing his dreams to his father - not an easy undertaking in this traditional society, where men are far more likely to fool around with cars and play soccer than dance. But his father's bewilderment was quickly overshadowed by love and pride.

"As far as this thing does no harm to him or to others he can do what he likes," says his father, Khaled Hashem Saffah. "He loves what he's doing, I cannot stop him from doing it."

The younger Mr. Saffah's friends were not so forgiving. Tortured by classmates who said ballet was for girls and sissies, he lasted just four months in the class.

"I thought it's not easy to give up on my friends. So I gave up on the ballet. I wanted to have my friends back. But after I went back to my friends, it was very hard for me not to practise and not to dance in my room," he says.

Soon his talent got the better of him: a few months later, he reluctantly agreed to be a former dance mate's partner in a May Day concert, where he was spotted by a local dance troupe leader who coaxed him to join.

He was recruited by the kibbutz school a short time later and here, after a year of study, he has found acceptance. As he speaks, passing classmates - all girls - squeal when they see him with a reporter, and welcome him with hugs and cheek kisses. In class, he is entirely oblivious to those around him as he dances, lost in his own world, but his talent is visible to all.

"With hard work, he can succeed," says Yehudit Arnon, the 81-year-old founder of the Kibbutz Contemporary Dance Company and its preparatory school, who has taken him on as her protégé and is bemused by growing references to Mr. Saffah as an Arab Billy Elliot.

Ms. Arnon, who swore she would devote her life to dance after nearly perishing at Auschwitz for refusing to dance for Nazi officers at a Christmas party, founded her company in 1970 after years of developing dance in Israel.

In Mr. Saffah, she says she sees the soul of an artist. "When I feel somebody is really an artist, we can help him. He has to bring that from inside. But when I saw Ayman, I thought, 'Here we can help.' "

The hard work has begun: five nights a week, he finishes high school in his village and rushes to the kibbutz for just under five hours of classes in classical ballet and contemporary dance, including jazz and hip-hop. His taxi-driver father concedes that financing his son's studies has been difficult, and he has two more years of study before he can hope to join the dance company.

"But if this is what Ayman wants, I will support him with all that I've got," the elder Mr. Saffah says. "I am proud of Ayman and so are my neighbours, especially when I saw him on television. I've had so many phone calls from friends and family members in our village telling me, 'We are so proud of your son who brought fame to the village.' "

Ayman Saffah dreams of performing on stages across Israel and around the world. But more than that, he dreams of returning to his village a success.

"I would like to be famous. I would like to be the first Palestinian Arab ballet dancer," he says. "My dream is to finish my education and dance class here and then to open my own dance studio, to teach classes for men and boys, and have a sign that says Ballet Studio for Men and Boys. Because they have never seen such a sign like this before."

How refreshing to read about a Palestinian teen who wants to be acknowledged for his artistry, not his martyrdom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:25 | link | comments

A shoe-in: MEMRI has a recent debate broadcast on A-J TV between Dr. Walid Phares—an eminent critic of the jihad—and a virulent Shia supremacist. The Shia, like Iran’s prez, seems to have a penchant for colourful but not especially effective metaphors (at least in translation):

Dr. Walid Fares: "In my opinion, it is the Iranian regime that wages wars. It is this regime that started these wars, threatens its neighbors, supplies weapons and equipment to the terrorists, and declares that it will wipe out entire emirates and countries. The Iranian regime transfers weapons to the Taliban even though it hates them, because it wants to fan the flames of war against the democratically elected government in Kabul. The Iranian regime still occupies the Arab Tunb islands, and it has recently threatened to annex Bahrain.

"The Iranian regime sends weapons to Hizbullah in order to topple the Lebanese government. The Iranian government arms Hamas not only against Israel, but against the Palestinians too, and the massacres perpetrated in Gaza were encouraged by the Iranian regime. It maintains a strategic alliance with the Syrian regime, which is accused of assassinating the former prime minister of Lebanon, as well as MPs. Considering this campaign by the Iranian regime, as well as its interference in Iraqi affairs, by arming terror cells within Iraq - how can you possibly claim that the world is threatening Iran? It is Iran that is threatening the region and the entire world. Its activity has even reached Argentina. Today, in the U.N., the Argentinean president attributed the bombings of the early 1990s to cells linked to Iranian agencies."

[...]

"Yesterday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said in New York that he would like the Iraqi people to have a referendum. Great, but why doesn’t he arrange a referendum for the Iranian people? Why does he want referendums all over the world except in Iran? We address this question to the Iranian leadership. Why doesn't it hold a referendum on all its policies, including nuclear energy? If it wants a nuclear bomb, it should tell us who the enemy is and on whom it wants to drop it, and it should hold a referendum for the Iranian people on this."

[...]

Muhammad Sadeq Al-Husseini: "First of all, democracy in Iran is more honorable than the old democracies in London and Paris and than the rule achieved fraudulently by George Bush, who was not really elected president. We have 27 elections every day, and there is a change of government from the extreme right to the extreme left - the right, the left, the religious stream, the liberal-religious stream, with a little bit of sugar, with a lot of sugar, clerics, and civilians... [The Iranian regime] believes in all the streams. Changes of government are carried out smoothly, unparalleled in the history of this region, which is surrounded by a bunch of dictatorships. Do you know what [the Americans] want? They want security and stability for General Musharraf, who is slaughtering his nation with worn-out shoes..."

Interviewer: "Worn-out shoes?"

Muhammad Sadeq Al-Husseini: 'That's right. With worn-out shoes, General Musharraf is slaughtering this great nation - the nation of Nuristan, which ranges from Afghanistan to Pakistan and India, and which used to be called the nation of Nuristan."

Interviewer: "[The Americans] turn a blind eye to his nuclear program?"

Muhammad Sadeq Al-Husseini: 'Not only that, but they even sign agreements with him in order to contain India and Pakistan, and to neutralize this great nation in order to remove it from the equation, so that they themselves will become the ruling empire."

[...]

Dr. Walid Fares: "How come this regime sends hundreds of millions of dollars to Hizbullah and Hamas, so they can fight and launch barbaric operations, while the [Iranian] people cannot join even the middle class? I would like a response from the Iranian leadership."

Muhammad Sadeq Al-Husseini: "The Iranian leadership responds to the legitimate demand of the noble Arab-Iranian people of Al-Ahwaz to fight for the sake of Palestine. But those who stand in the way are those intellectuals who want a mandate rule of democracy. Their collaborators and cronies in Lebanon say that the Iranians must not show solidarity with the Lebanese, that the Syrians must not show solidarity with the Lebanese, and that the Arabs and Muslims must not show solidarity with the Palestinians. [They say]: We must slaughter them one by one, or leave them alone.

"When the Arab and Muslim martyrdom-seeking brothers in Al-Ahwaz, who are ready to liberate Palestine, want to take action, the first to stand in their way are those people who await the 'airborne democracy.' They dropped this democracy on Iraq, thinking that the proud Iraqi Arab people would greet them with roses and basil. It greeted them with explosive devices and organized warfare. It greeted them with heroic resistance and political resistance. It brought them to their knees at the bottom of the Iraqi quagmire, and made them plead for help from Damascus and Tehran, and from any power in the world: 'God, make one of the neighboring countries rescue us from our plight.' Even Kissinger said that."

[...]

"Any American, British, or other member of the white race who participates in the war against the Muslims, will pay a steep and heavy price."

That begs the question: what about all the non-white Americans and Brits who participate in the war? Do they get to do so gratis?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

A couplet for a conference: Short, but not so sweet:

Annapolis

Is full of crapolis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:12 | link | comments

Too rosy for the alarmists: The latest eco-catastrophe report from the UN is grim, dire and over-the-top hysterical in its predictions—the better to convince us, once and for all, to submit to the inevitable and put our future in the hands a bunch of all-powerful UN bureaucrats. But according to some “experts,” the hysteria isn’t nearly hysterical enough. From the International Herald Tribune:

VALENCIA, Spain: The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report's authors admit.

The report describes the evidence for human-induced climate change as "unequivocal." The rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thus far will result in an average rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, or 1.4 meters, it concluded.

"Slowing - and reversing - these threats is the defining challenge of our age," Ban said upon the report's release Saturday.

Ban said he had just completed a whirlwind tour of some climate change hot spots, which he called as "frightening as a science-fiction movie."

He described ice sheets breaking up in Antarctica, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, and children in Chile having to wear protective clothing because an ozone hole was letting in so much ultraviolet radiation.

The panel's fourth and final report summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of the panel's exhaustive climate-science review that were released from January through April, to create an official "pocket guide" to climate change for policy makers who must now decide how the world will respond.

The first covered climate trends; the second, the world's ability to adapt to a warming planet; the third, strategies for reducing carbon emissions. With their mission now concluded, the hundreds of IPCC scientists spoke more freely than they had previously.

"The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking," said Martin Parry, a British climate expert who was co-chairman of the delegation that wrote the second report.

This report's summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet could result in a substantive sea level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

"Many of my colleagues would consider that kind of melt a catastrophe" so rapid that mankind would not be able to adapt, said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University who contributed to the IPCC.

Delegations from hundreds of nations will be meeting in Bali, Indonesia in two weeks to start hammering out a global climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the current climate change treaty. The first phase of the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2012.

"It's extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action," said Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University's Earth Institute. "We can't afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can't afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now."

He said that delegates in Bali should take action immediately where they do agree, for example, by public financing for demonstration projects on new technologies like "carbon capture," a "promising but not proved" system that pumps emissions underground instead of releasing them into the sky. He said the energy ministers should start a global fund to help poor countries avoid deforestation, which causes emissions to increase because growing plants absorb carbon in the atmosphere.

Although the scientific data is not new, this was the first time it had been looked at together in its entirety, leading the scientists to new emphasis and more sweeping conclusions.

But even as the IPCC was working toward its conclusions over the past several years, a steady stream of even more alarming data has come in.

"The IPCC is a five-year process and the IPCC is struggling to keep up with the data - we are all being inundated with new evidence and new science," said Hans Verolme, director of the Global Climate Change Program at the conservation organization WWF.

"And the new science is saying: 'You thought it was bad? No it's worse.' "…

Of course it is.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:24 | link | comments

Malloch(-)Brown, man of renown: The Times has a profile of Lord Malloch-Brown, an exemplar of the Peter Principle whose bosses have included George Soros and Kofi Annan—he was Kofi’s Number Two during the oil-for-food kafuffle—and who is now making waves in the British Cabinet:

…Born in Britain, Malloch-Brown was raised in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), the son of a South African diplomat who fled the apartheid regime. He was educated at Marlborough before earning a first in history from Cambridge and a masters in politics from Michigan.

A two-year stint as political correspondent at The Economist seemed to be little preparation for his mission to save the world at the office of the UN high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR). Aged 26, he built a refugee camp for more than 100,000 Cambodians on the Thai border in 1979.

There he won the admiration of Morton Abramowitz, then US ambassador to Thailand, who recalled last week that he was “stunned” that someone so young could show such drive and initiative. “He did a spectacular job,” he said.

Later, while acting as advisers to Soros on how to spend his $50m gift to Bosnia, the two men set up the International Crisis Group in 1993 to lobby western governments during humanitarian crises.

His flirtation with British politics was fleeting when he decided to stand in the 1983 general election for the nascent Social Democratic party. Prudently, he kept his options open. “I went to see the [UNHCR] director of personnel and got an undated, signed resignation letter just in case I got a seat.” He was sent packing by a selection committee, but the personnel director kept the letter. His name was Kofi Annan.

Malloch-Brown went on to make his name as a “mercenary for democracy” with Washington’s Sawyer Miller political consultancy, which spread the techniques of American political campaigns to foreign governments. As head of its international division, Malloch-Brown turned up in the Philippines to help Corazon Aquino’s successful campaign to unseat the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. He was also involved in another successful campaign to depose a dictator, Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

In 1994 he joined the World Bank as a PR supremo while the organisation was suffering low morale and under attack for wasting American tax dollars.

Five years later Annan – by then secretary-general of the UN – appointed him administrator of the equally fraught UN development programme (UNDP). A development official speaks well of him: “The consensus is that he was successful. What he did was to reinvent the UNDP as a specialised agency which dealt with governance and postconflict issues.”

In 2005 he became chief of staff to Annan, who had been damaged by the revelation that his son Kojo was paid by a Swiss firm that held a UN food contract.

Malloch-Brown’s hardest task was defending the UN’s oil for food programme to Iraq. His claim that “not a penny was lost from the organisation” was at odds with an internal audit showing that overcompensation amounted to $557m…

The indefatigable Claudia Rosett, the reporter who more than any other kept the oil-for-food flim-flam on the front burner, had this to say recently in the Spectator about Molloch, er, sorry, Malloch Brown and his dubious connections. (For some reason, the Spectator eschews the hyphen in his name):

…At a UN press briefing in New York on 20 June 2005, about six months after he had become Annan’s chief of staff, Malloch Brown was asked by a reporter to explain the full extent of his financial relationship with George Soros. He heatedly denied any financial relationship, praised Soros for his work around the world and tore a strip off the questioner. He went on to say, ‘In UNDP we collaborate extensively. For that reason, it was absolutely critical when we set our hearts on a house on his property that if we were going to rent it, we’d pay the full commercial rent, and we have done so.’

But neither proof nor any further details were forthcoming. Indeed, Malloch Brown has refused even to say when he began his tenancy.

The relationship between the UNDP and Soros remains obscure. The UN last year was unable or unwilling to supply a complete list of details accounting for this relationship; neither did Soros’s Open Society Institute open up about it. But Malloch Brown and Soros were sufficiently close professionally to give a joint press conference on 19 March 2002 at a global aid gathering in Monterrey, Mexico.

Nor did Malloch Brown ever disclose his finances to the public — despite presiding over reforms that he assured the world would mean more transparency. In 2005, Malloch Brown told the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that ‘transparency and accountability are the watchwords for the United Nations in the new century’ and described ‘more rigorous financial disclosures by senior officials’ as an immediate management reform that the UN was already undertaking. In 2006, the UN Secretariat launched a reform requiring senior UN administrative officials to fill out financial disclosure forms and file them with the UN’s new Ethics Office. But this ‘financial disclosure’ policy came with an extraordinary loophole of which Kafka would have been proud: the forms did not actually need to be disclosed to the public. This year, Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan’s successor, and his deputy both voluntarily released their financial forms to the public. But despite much talk about transparency, neither Annan nor Malloch Brown chose to release theirs.

The connection with Soros became ever closer once Malloch Brown left the UN. Malloch Brown was appointed to senior positions at both Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute, which promotes democracy and the rule of law and which Soros founded and of which he remains the chairman. The Wall Street Journal cheekily dubbed Malloch Brown part of an ‘axis of Soros’…

Sounds like a gentleman and a scholar. No wonder they were so keen to have him in the British Cabinet.

My "initial" reaction to M-B's C.V.:

The bosses of M. Malloch-Brown

Were men of much greater renown.

The examples before us—

K. Annan and G. Soros—

Cannot help but elicit a frown.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:24 | link | comments

Jihad? What jihad?: The somnabulists vying to lead the Democrats ignore the big, angry dromedary that’s defecating in the parlor. By Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:

Whew, that was a close one. We suffered a big attack and were in mortal danger for a while, but we are safe now. Thank God, the war on terror is over. There are no Islamic extremists. Homeland security is not an issue. The only problem in Iraq is how to get out.

Wait, this is news to you? Then you didn't watch the Democratic debate Thursday. Or maybe you did watch, but since those unpleasant topics were completely or mostly ignored, you assumed the war was over and went to bed believing peace is at hand and Santa Claus is busy making toys at the North Pole.

It's not your fault. It's the Democratic presidential candidates who are sleepwalking through history.

As befitting a scrum with too many people and too little time, the debate touched on everything and illuminated nothing. Sen. Hillary Clinton made headlines by defending herself and for finally taking a position against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, but the gaping hole was the absence of any serious reference to the war on terror. It's long been that way on the campaign trail, and now Dem debates reflect the dangerous drift.

A New York Times language tracker tells the tale. Neither "homeland security" nor "war on terror" were mentioned. Osama Bin Laden was a no-show and Al Qaeda got one mention. "Terrorism" got three, two of them by audience members asking questions, as did "extremists," with two of those in a single answer by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. On the other hand, "health" got 45 mentions and "education" 20.

It is remarkable how far the party and much of the country have strayed from the national unity of 9/11 (three mentions). While Bush's flawed handling of Iraq is a main reason, the unwillingness to separate his failure from the overriding truths of the continuing terror threat will come back to haunt not only Democrats, but the nation…

And not only the nation, but the entire world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:43 | link | comments

Cassius’s call: Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party’s lean and hungry Cassius who’s been biding his time while his feckless Caesar, Stephane Dion, continues to flail away, thinks an Annapolis peace deal is all but inevitable. His reasoning—if you can call it that: the leaders involved are so “weak and exhausted” that they don’t have the strength to perpetuate the fight.

To which the only reasonable response is: "Huh"?

From the Toronto Star:

…The best way to secure Israel's long-term survival is for a complete and permanent withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and to cede these territories to a legitimately elected Palestinian Authority in control of an internationally recognized sovereign state living in peace, side-by-side with an Israel secure within its own borders and free of terror from its neighbours. This remains true even if you accept that there are terrorists in the Arab world who will never be content unless Israel is driven into the sea.

A successful strategy against terror depends on providing enough peace for both Israelis and Palestinians that extremists on either side begin to lose the support that keeps the violence alive. A successful political strategy must also persuade Israelis that the land it evacuates will not be used as a launching pad for attacks on its citizens.

Peace will come at Annapolis, I believe, not because Israeli and Palestinian hearts and minds reach out to each other, but rather because both are united in exhaustion and fear. But then, peace is often built on such disillusioned foundations. Securing these foundations, in any way both parties need, is in Canada's best interests. Let's pay attention to Annapolis and let's respond generously and far-sightedly when the opportunity for leadership presents itself.

In December, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Prize for Peace, won when Pearson and a great team of Canadian diplomats and soldiers created the first peacekeeping force to police the demarcation line between Israelis and Arab armies after the war of 1956. Fifty years ago, we displayed our creativity, our imagination and our greatness as a people. At Annapolis, another opportunity for greatness may present itself. Let us seize the time.

Au contraire, ye wannabe Caesar. Let us leave it unseized. Let us instead turn away from trying to "fix" the problem by pressuring Jews to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, all the while ignoring the heart of matter: the Arab refusal to come to terms with the reality of a sovereign Jewish state embedded in the heart of Dar al-Islam.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:10 | link | comments

Bilge: “Rabbi” Michael Lerner, a prominent anti-Zionist Jew, reviews a book written by Jonathan Garfinkle, a less prominent anti-Zionist Jew. Garfinkle has chronicled his anti-Zionism, or as he terms it, his "ambivalence," in a book entitled—what are the odds?—Ambivalence. The result is a maddening though instructive primer on the mindset of Jews who seek to distance themselves from the Jewish pariah state and the pathological antisemitism it engenders by identifying with “the oneness” of all of mankind.

Yeah, that’ll save your hides, boys.

From the Globe and Mail, which should have known better than to assign this book to that reviewer:

…Garfinkel, like most Jews who sympathize with the Palestinian cause, is aware that Palestinian leaders tragically rejected the state that was offered them in 1947. He is disturbed that outrage at 60 years of occupation has led many Palestinians to sympathize with those who have reverted to violence and terror (Rana herself justifies such acts, an important reason for Garfinkel's ambivalence about her). And again like many Jews, he is ambivalent about the Palestinian demand of a "right to return" to their original homes, which have been "owned" by several generations of Jews.

Garfinkel is a loner. He visits some projects in Israel that exhibit co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians. But his ambivalence is there to the end. It is precisely his inner struggle, documented quite beautifully in this powerful cri de coeur, that makes this book a deeply engaging account of a Jewish "coming of age," in which the story of Jewish victimhood can no longer provide either justification or blinders for young Jews about the role Diaspora communities play in justifying the oppression of the Palestinian people by a state that claims to represent the Jewish people.

Finally, it is sadness, not anger, that this story provokes, plus an abiding hope that both Jews and Arabs may yet overcome pathological forms of nationalism and the "my suffering is worse than yours" misery competition and move to a higher vision of common interests in a new ethos of reconciliation and even, unimaginable as it might be in the present moment, mutual caring and support.

The Jonathan Garfinkels of the world will be increasingly ambivalent about their Jewish identity until a community emerges that can affirm the unity of all being and the oneness of humanity, and abandon its insistence that anyone who cares for Palestinians is either a "self-hating Jew" or an anti-Semite.

Well Kumbafrikkinya, you clueless, self-loathing Yids. Your affirming the unity of all being and the oneness of humanity (stop—it’s all too beeyootiful for me) ain’t gonna get you a pass from the Jew-haters come the next Shoah.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:59 | link | comments (1)

Thought I’d share: I just picked up the September issue of National Geographic at my local library because of its cover story: Islam’s Fault Line PAKISTAN.  It was fascinating to read in light of the current situation that country, and I learned a number of intriguing things I hadn’t known  before. For one, the fact that Daniel Pearl wasn’t merely decapitated by the Jew-hating jihadists who kidnapped him (Jew-hating jihadist being something of an oxymoron, I know). He was cut up—butchered—into ten pieces. Afterwards, his remains were collected and taken to the morgue by a well-known humanitarian, Abdul Sattan Edhi. Edhi, who started out on a one man campaign to help Pakistan’s poor and dispossessed—“tending to Pakistan’s dirty work,” as the article describes it, now heads up “an acclaimed international charity.” However, since, as him retrieval of Daniel Pearl’s body parts show, he makes no distinction between those in need—Muslims and infidels, he’s will to help them all—he receives numerous death threats every week from those who believe that only Muslims should only help Muslms.

The other thing I learned—is that most of the blame for the current crisis can be laid at the feet of one man: General  Zia ul-Haq. He’s the guy who, back in the 1970s, embarked on a program of Islamization—and a darned good job he did of it, too. When he started out, there were said to be only 1,000 madrassahs teaching that “delightful” backward-looking type of Islam so beloved by the Wahhabis (who help finance much of the schools) and the Taliban. Today there are supposedly 10,000 madrassahs—but that takes in only the ones that are actually registered. There are God only knows how many thousands more “ghost schools.” Unregistered, they “exist only on paper to line the pockets of phantom teachers and administrators,” and their popularity isn’t hard to explain:

Faced with choosing between bad public schools and expensive private ones, many poor parents send their children to the madrassahs, where they get a roof over their heads, three meals a day, and a Koran-based education—for free.

It’s “free” in the sense that impoverished parents aren’t out of pocket for their sons’ education. But Pakistani society has ended up paying an immense price for this “free” education—a generation taught to believe in Islamic supremacism and to hate anyone who would impede it. This hatred—part and parcel of the supremacist creed—has spilled out of Pakistan and continues to imperil Pakistan and much of the West.

In the long term, though, it would have been far better for everyone (except the Wahhabis, jihadis and other supremacists) had "the Haq generation" remained in their crappy public schools.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:25 | link | comments

Of snake oil and seaweed: Way back when a fast-talking sharpie in a horse-drawn wagon would roam from town to town and flog snake oil—“good for what ails you”—to the credulous locals.

Today, of course, things are much different. From the Globe and Mail:

Lululemon Athletica is backing away from claims touting the health benefits of its seaweed-fibre clothing after concerns raised by the federal Competition Bureau.

The move came yesterday after several days of controversy for the Vancouver-based yoga wear chain prompted by a newspaper report that challenged the health benefits and whether the clothing even contains traces of seaweed minerals and nutrients.

Lululemon, a fast-growing retailer that has been a stock market darling since going public in the summer, agreed to remove the tags with the claims or cover them with a sticker until it can produce scientific evidence that they are true.

Andrea Rosen, the bureau's acting deputy commissioner, said the agency has also asked Lululemon to review all the claims it makes for materials in its other clothing.

The premium-priced chain tries to capitalize on consumers' rising interest in all things organic. It carries athletic wear that contains unusual materials such as bamboo, silver, charcoal, coconut and soybeans.

"We just want to make sure that when they are making these kinds of claims, that they have available scientific tests that will substantiate those claims," she said in an interview.

Labels on Lululemon's line of VitaSea shirts, which cost up to $59 each, say they reduce stress and provide anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits. The tags say the VitaSea clothing "releases marine amino acids, minerals and vitamins into the skin upon contact with moisture."…

I think P.T. Barnum said it best: There’s a sucker (willing to fork over nearly sixty smackeroos for a magic seaweed shirt) born every minute.

Or words to that effect.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments

Stupid, delusional, self-destructive: That’s the Olmert crew for you, a bunch of clueless wishful thinkers who are incapable of grasping reality or learning from the past. By Caroline Glick in JWR:

…Kadima's leaders are marching towards their next failure at Rice's peace parley in Annapolis.

Kadima's leaders promise us that we have nothing to worry about. They learned the lessons of the Gaza withdrawal.

Unfortunately, it seems that they have learned the wrong lessons. The decision to withdraw from Gaza was founded on an understanding that there were no Palestinian leaders willing to make peace with the Jewish state. Instead of fight to victory and so enable a peaceful Palestinian leadership to emerge, Israel opted to cut and run.

Far from learning that cutting and running is a bad strategy, Kadima's leaders embrace it. What they learned from Gaza is that they were wrong to acknowledge that there are no Palestinian leaders interested in making peace with Israel. So rather than repeat that "mistake," they invented the fiction of Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as a credible leader.

If Kadima's leaders are allowed to go forward with their "peace" talks with their fictional Palestinian partner, the consequence will be the transformation of Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem into the second Gaza. And this is something that Israel cannot allow. While the Gaza terror state directly threatens 250,000 Israelis, the Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem terror state would place millions in its crosshairs. Every major city is within rocket range of the areas. A partitioned Jerusalem would become uninhabitable for Jews.

Unfortunately, Kadima's leaders don't care. What is important to Kadima's leaders is, in Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's words, "to create processes."

Livni, it would seem, has taken on the role of chief defender of the government's new big strategy. Speaking at the Knesset this week, she claimed that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Israel's concessions will only be implemented after the Palestinians fight terrorism. Of course by agreeing to conduct negotiations Israel surrendered its former position that nothing could be discussed until after the Palestinians fought terrorism.

As for Olmert, in the current iteration of Kadima's strategic myopia, he shows that he learned nothing from Lebanon. There he decided to launch a counter-strike without accepting that Israel was at war. He then spent the next five weeks pushing policies that were aimed at forcing reality to bend to his imagination.

Today, as then, Olmert moves ahead with negotiations with Abbas and Rice without any consideration for the consequences. Indeed, like Livni, he denies that there are consequences. He refuses to consider the effects of his support for Abbas — a leader with no followers, who already lost an election to Hamas in 2006 and lost Gaza to Hamas in 2007. He thinks that the fact that he is offering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to a leader of a society that refuses to accept Israel's right to exist is cost-free.

Of course, this isn't the case. His willingness to offer such enormous concessions has radicalized his powerless interlocutor still further. Then too, Olmert's willingness to accept Abbas as a negotiating partner and embrace the fantasy that his Fatah group is something other than a terrorist organization has had dire consequences for Israel's relations with the US. Seizing on Israel's willingness to deal with irreconcilable foes, Rice invited Syrian dictator Bashar Assad to send a representative to Annapolis. There, Iran's junior partner in nuclear weapons development will demand that Israel surrender the Golan Heights to its Iranian-trained army...

Hasta la vista, Israel. It’s been good to know ya.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

Plus ca change...: David Frum sees an eerie parallel between the al-Dura blood libel and the Dreyfus case—with one major difference. From the National Post:

…It is hard not to see parallels to another famous forgery case that also implicated much of the upper reaches of the French government — the Dreyfus Affair. Then too, much of the French government connived in an anti-Semitic forgery. Then too, the forgers used the law of defamation to try to silence their leading critic, Emile Zola.

Of course, some things have changed in the past century. Enderlin is himself Jewish.

You have to give contemporary anti-Semitism credit at least for this. It is an equal-opportunity employer, willing to employ people of all races and backgrounds to defame Jews and the Jewish state.

Enderlin est un vrai maudit Juif.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments

Demagogue gets his groove: Don’t look now, but Tiny Hitler’s pal Hu is in the process of crafting a socialist “Utopia”. From the New York Times:

CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 16 — In two weeks, Venezuela seems likely to start an extraordinary experiment in centralized, oil-fueled socialism. By law, the workday would be cut to six hours. Street vendors, homemakers and maids would have state-mandated pensions. And President Hugo Chávez would have significantly enhanced powers and be eligible for re-election for the rest of his life.Skip to next paragraph

A sweeping revision of the Constitution, expected to be approved by referendum on Dec. 2, is both bolstering Mr. Chávez’s popularity here among people who would benefit and stirring contempt from economists who declare it demagogy. Signaling new instability here, dissent is also emerging among his former lieutenants, one of whom says the president is carrying out a populist coup.

“There is a perverse subversion of our existing Constitution under way,” said Gen. Raúl Isaías Baduel, a retired defense minister and former confidant of Mr. Chávez who broke with him in a stunning defection this month to the political opposition. “This is not a reform,” General Baduel said in an interview here this week. “I categorize it as a coup d’état.”

Chávez loyalists already control the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, almost every state government, the entire federal bureaucracy and newly nationalized companies in the telephone, electricity and oil industries. Soon they could control even more.

But this is an upheaval that would be carried out with the approval of the voters. While opinion polls in Venezuela are often tainted by partisanship, they suggest that the referendum could be Mr. Chávez’s closest electoral test since his presidency began in 1999, but one he may well win.

“We are witnessing a seizure and redirection of power through legitimate means,” said Alberto Barrera Tyszka, co-author of a best-selling biography of Mr. Chávez. “This is not a dictatorship but something more complex: the tyranny of popularity.”

One of the 69 amendments allows Mr. Chávez to create new administrative regions, governed by vice presidents chosen by him. Critics say the reforms would also shift funds from states and cities, where a handful of elected officials still oppose him, to communal councils, new local governing entities that are predominantly pro-Chávez.

Interviews this week on the streets here and in Maracaibo, Venezuela’s second largest city, offer a window into the strength of Mr. Chávez’s followers and the challenges of his critics. His supporters, many of whom are public servants in a bureaucracy that has recently ballooned, have flooded poor districts to campaign for the overhaul.

“The comandante should have more power because he is the force behind our revolution,” said Egda Vilchez, 51, a pro-Chávez activist, as she campaigned in favor of the new charter this week at a busy intersection in Cacique Mara, an area of slums in eastern Maracaibo.

Such statements may sound dogmatic, but they are voiced with a fervor in organized campaigning that is unmatched in richer areas of Venezuela’s largest cities, from which much of the opposition to Mr. Chávez is drawn.

Aside from a nascent student movement, which has held protests of increasing defiance in recent weeks, the middle and upper classes seem largely resigned about the outcome of a referendum that is less about specific issues than Mr. Chávez’s resilient support among the poor.

In comments after a summit of Latin American leaders this month in Chile, Mr. Chávez laid out his project in simple language. “Capitalist Venezuela is entering its grave,” he said, “and socialist Venezuela is being born.” Indeed, socialist imagery is pervasive throughout this country, from the red shirts worn by Mr. Chávez and his followers to the chant of “Fatherland, socialism or death!” repeated at the end of his rallies…

Puts me in mind of another “socialist” movement whose chant at rallies went “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!”

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:21 | link | comments

Chuckles of Arabia: Melanie Phillips writes that the Prince of Wales comes by his disdain for the Jewish state honestly—it's in his blood:

Clearly, either the Israel embassy in London or the Times has a sense of black humour. In its report of today’s Jewish Chronicle story about how the initial enthusiasm by Prince Charles’s private secretary sir Michael Peat to accept an offer to visit Israel was slapped down by others in the Prince’s household for fear that HRH might be used to help Israel burnish its international image (heaven forbid), the Times volunteered that the invitation by the Israel embassy had been issued in the hope of building on the traditionally strong relations between Israel and the British Royal Family.

Such relations have of course been traditionally not just not strong but invisible. As the story makes clear, there has never been an official visit by the Royal Family in the six decades of Israel’s existence. Yet Prince Charles, whose affinities with the Islamic world are well documented, thinks nothing of visiting Saudi Arabia (and formally receiving its King when he visited the UK last month). He bestows royal favour upon one of the most repressive and dictatorial regimes on earth, and which is the wellspring of the war of conquest being waged against his own country, but refuses to visit the one democracy and true ally of this country in the Middle East in case he might ‘burnish its international image’.  

 

Obviously, Sir Michael’s own decent and entirely rational reaction was slapped down by the innate prejudice of the Royal household at Clarence House. Despite the humiliating attempts by forelock-tugging British Jewish leaders to smooth this incident over on the grounds that 'Prince Charles is a great friend of the Jewish community,’

 

He is certainly no friend of Israel nor Jewish peoplehood.

That’s ‘cause we don’t have those fun costumes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:44 | link | comments

Gloom and doom in da room: Well-groomed Holocaust denier/Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas says the upcoming Annapolis confab is doomed to failure because of the Jews. From albawaba:

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas discussed a planned Middle East peace conference in the United States with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Friday and expressed pessimism about its prospects, a Palestinian diplomat said. During talks at the king's ranch near Riyadh, Abbas conveyed the Palestinians "are so far unhappy with the Israeli position, because the Israelis have not offered something that could ensure the success of the conference," the Palestinian ambassador in Riyadh, Jamal al-Shobaki, told AFP…

You know—like volunteering to jump en masse off a cliff.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:53 | link | comments (1)

The Ceeb shills for anti-Zionist play: A Ceeb critic takes at gander at the controversy surrounding My Name is Rachel Corrie, soon to be leaving its skid marks across the country:

…The reason the play makes producers skittish is that its sole political viewpoint comes from Corrie, a member of the nonviolent International Solidarity Movement, who was in Gaza to protest the Israeli treatment of Palestinians when she died in March 2003, at the age of 23. The one-woman show, created by British actor Alan Rickman and Guardian newspaper editor Katharine Viner, is constructed almost entirely out of Corrie’s e-mails and diary entries, and makes no pretense at objectivity.

 “It doesn’t put the policies of the Israeli government in a kind light at all,” Prinsloo acknowledges. “It looks at the conditions under which the Palestinians of Gaza live, and those aren’t pleasant in any way.” As a pre-emptive move, Prinsloo and Sage’s artistic director, Kelly Reay, have already met with representatives of Calgary’s Jewish community to allay concerns about the play’s partisan view. The company, which in the past has staged political works like Jason Sherman’s Reading Hebron and Tony Kushner’s Slavs!, will be offering audience talk-back sessions after each performance. “We want to bring in other viewpoints,” Prinsloo says.

The play shows the precarious day-to-day lives of Palestinians through Corrie’s eyes, but it’s more than a piece of theatrical journalism. Her writings, dating back to her childhood, also trace the personal journey that took her from a comfortable middle-class home in Olympia, Wash., to beleaguered Rafah, where she died while trying to stop the Israeli army’s demolition operations. Along the way, the real Rachel emerges from behind the headlines, the “messy, skinny, Dali-loving, list-making chain-smoker, with a passion for the music of Pat Benatar,” to quote Viner. And also revealed is a remarkable young woman, whose fierce desire to make a difference in the world was allied with a sharp intelligence and a writer’s gift of observation.

“It reminds me of the diary of Anne Frank,” says actress Adrienne Smook, making a loaded comparison with the famous Holocaust victim. “They both documented their lives in such a beautiful way.” Smook, who plays Corrie in Sage’s production, says when she first read the script, she was impressed with how articulate and poetic the activist could be. “There’s poetry all through [her writings]. Once she goes to Gaza, her writing is a lot more fact-driven reporting, but every once in a while she writes a little poem – poetry flows out of her, it seems, despite herself.”

Smook, 29, finds it easy to identify with Corrie. They were born in the same year, grew up on the West Coast (Smook on Vancouver Island) and come from white, middle-class families in which they were the only artists. The production emphasizes the similarities, with backdrop projections that use Smook’s childhood and family photos rather than Corrie’s. The actress says it makes for “an incredible emotional connection” with Corrie. “It sounds really Method actor-y, but it is actually a really good way of telling this story in an honest and truthful way.”

Where the role offers a challenge, says Smook, is in “finding the emotional place that a person has gotten to that makes them stand in front of a bulldozer instead of running away. That’s a pretty big sacrifice,” she adds. “And she was a human shield many times while she was over there – that wasn’t the first time she’d used her body to shield Palestinian people or Palestinian homes.” Corrie has been viewed both as fearless and foolhardy in the protest that led to her death. Attempting to block an Israeli military Caterpillar apparently headed in the direction of a house, Corrie climbed on top of the pile of rubble it had scooped up and was pulled under when the bulldozer moved forward. An Israeli government inquiry concluded that her death was an accident; Corrie’s activist colleagues claimed the driver deliberately drove over her, despite their attempts to make him stop.

Corrie was an ardent critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza, but her e-mail dispatches to her family show that she was an opponent of Israeli government policy, not the Israelis themselves. “Midway through the play, she asks, at what point did condemnation of the Israeli government become condemnation of all Jewish people?” says Prinsloo. “The Jewish people have had a huge history of devastation and repression, and that cannot be ignored in any way,” he adds. “But at the same time, it can’t be something that prevents us from having a discussion about what is occurring [in the Palestinian territories].”…

Here’s what’s occurring in the Palestinian territories: Islamic-Nazis are a-seething in Hamasistan while their "secular"  rivals, Fatah—whom they despise and are doing their best to eliminate, as they hope to eliminate the Jews—are getting set to partake in the next Peace in Our Time confab/farce over in Mich.

Maybe Smook and Co. could dramatize it as “My Name is Gilad Shalit/Eldad Regev/ Ehud Goldwasser.

Shockingly, the Ceeb piece includes this now-iconic photo of the "peace-loving" Rachel in action:

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:42 | link | comments

Watchdogs dumb, mullahs smarter: On this cold November day, here's a sunny Calypso number especially for Mo ElBee and his band of feckless watchdogs:

Let us put mullahs and watchdogs together

And see which one is smarter.

Some say ‘dogs

But I say, “Lies!

Mullahs dissemblin’ before their eyes.”

 

Like me lots of people they say

That we gotta get rid of ElBaradei.

‘Cause we say

That the mullahs of today

Smarter than the 'dogs in ev’ry way.

 

That’s right the mullahs are (ugh) smarter.

That’s right the mullahs are (ugh) smarter.

That’s right the mullahs are (ugh) smarter.

That’s right.

That’s right.

 

Tiny Hitler he make a nuke

Though watchers say he just a kook.

Year from now it be “bombs away.”

See mushroom cloud that very day.

 

Like me lots of people they say

That the Shia threat it not goin’ away.

‘Cause we say

That the mullahs of today

Smarter than the 'dogs in ev’ry way.

 

That’s right the mullahs are (ugh) smarter.

That’s right the mullahs are (ugh) smarter.

That’s right the mullahs are (ugh) smarter.

That’s right.

That’s right.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:53 | link | comments

Iran’s magic number: It’s 3,000—and it has already been reached. From the Guardian:

Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported last night.

The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will intensify US and European pressure for tighter sanctions and increase speculation of a potential military conflict.

The installation of 3,000 fully-functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they are capable of producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium (enriched to over 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year.

The IAEA says the uranium being produced is only fuel grade (enriched to 4%) but the confirmation that Iran has reached the 3,000 centrifuge benchmark brings closer a moment of truth for the Bush administration, when it will have to choose between taking military action or abandoning its red line, and accepting Iran's technical mastery of uranium enrichment.

US generals are reported to have warned the White House that military action would trigger a devastating Iranian backlash in the Middle East and beyond.

Russian officials yesterday called for patience, insisting Iran could still clinch a deal with the international community in the next few weeks. They pointed to other parts of the IAEA report showing Tehran had been cooperating with the agency's inspectors on other nuclear issues.

"We are most concerned to prevent Iran being cornered so that they walk out of the Non Proliferation Treaty, and break relations with the IAEA," one Russian source said. He said Chinese officials were stepping up diplomatic pressure on Iran, with Moscow, to avert a collision.

"They are on high alert that something has to be done quickly," the source said.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also seized on positive parts of the IAEA report, noting increased Iranian cooperation with inspectors, as vindication for Tehran. He said: "The world will see that the Iranian nation has been right and the resistance of our nation has been correct."

Last night, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "If Iran wants to restore trust in its programme it must come clean on all outstanding issues without delay."

Gordon Brown has called for increased pressure on Tehran, including an international ban on investment in the Iranian oil and gas industry. But UK officials are nervous about pressure from the US vice president Dick Cheney and other hawks for military action against Iran before a new administration takes office in January 2009. They emphasise that Iranian scientists could be months if not years away from getting the 3,000 centrifuges to function properly, at top speed, for a sustained period, and insist there is no imminent pressure for military intervention.

However, they also point out that Israel's red lines for military action are unclear.

Against the fraught backdrop, a meeting of senior officials from the UN security council's five permanent members and Germany to decide on sanctions, planned for Monday, was put off after the Chinese delegation said it could not attend.

The critical meeting has been pushed back to later this month, giving time for the six-nation group's negotiator, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, to hold last-ditch talks with Iranian officials.

The ElBaradei report gave a mixed account of Iran's cooperation with inspectors looking into Tehran's nuclear activity in the two decades before it declared its enrichment programme. "Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions," it said, but added that "cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive".

David Albright, a former UN inspector and now an independent nuclear expert in Washington, said ElBaradei appeared to be trying to put "a happy face" on a worsening situation. "The main issue is that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges," he said. "The report doesn't even judge the quality of the information being offered, but it's clear it is giving minimal answers."

Wake up, people. It’s way past time to quit with the pointless blather, ditch Mr. Happy Face, and focus on divesting the mullahs of as many centrifuges as possible.

Now.

Or else.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments (1)

An angry difference of opinion: MEMRI has an unintentionally amusing slanging match between a secularist and a cleric that was broadcast last month on Al-Jazeera. Please note that the overheated Sheikh had some "interesting" ideas about "the Jews":

The following are excerpts from a debate on secularism and Islamism in the Middle East with Syrian author Nidhal Na'isa and Egyptian cleric Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Khouli. The debate aired on Al-Jazeera TV on October 30, 2007.

To view this clip visit: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1600.htm

 [...]

Interviewer: "What is better for the Arab world - the modern Western platform or the Islamic platform? Only 10.4% voted for the modern Western platform, while 89.6% voted for the Islamic platform. Nidhal Na'isa, let me begin with you.

"Despite the Western, economic, political, cultural, media, and social invasion of the region, the Arab individual's hatred of the foreign platforms only grows, and his adherence to the Islamic platform increases. You have the results before you: About 90 percent of the voters reject the modernizing, secular, Western platforms - call them what you will. How do you respond to this?"

[...]

Nidhal Na'isa: "As you know, these voters are a bunch of people misled and numbed by the proselytizing, generalized, deceptive, romanticized discourse, which promises them black-eyed virgins and boys in Paradise, and such things. This discourse merely postpones the resolution of their problems - instead of resolving them today, let's resolve them in a billion years. This is escapism into the future. That's one thing. If those voters had managed to get a job and a visa to America, none of them would have voted, and nobody would have watched your show. You would be fired from Al-Jazeera and would be left jobless.

"Secondly, these votes reflect disgust for the totalitarian regimes. Like the hijab and all this Islamization, we are talking about disgust with the totalitarian regimes that have denied these people the good life. They are not voting this way out of love for these platforms... "

Interviewer: "They're not voting this way out of love for the Islamic platforms?"

"We Must Draw a Distinction Between Islam and the Islamists; There are Islamists, Who Use Islam for Their Political Designs, and There is Islam"

Nidhal Na'isa: "The platforms are Islamist, not Islamic. We must draw a distinction between Islam and the Islamists. There are Islamists, who use Islam for their political designs, and there is Islam. We respect Islam in the religious, spiritual, and ideological sense. But those peddlers of Islam, who accuse others of heresy, are the ones we must confront. They mislead these wretched people and make fools of them, by the deceptive proselytizing discourse.

"If these voters had experienced life under the rule of the Taliban, under the rule of the [Somali] Islamic Courts Union, or under the rule of Al-Turabi in Sudan, with their 'salvation state,' or whatever they call it, they would renounce all their beliefs, and would flee not only to America, but to Zimbabwe, Upper Volta, Burkina Faso, or Myanmar.

"Ever since these Bedouins invaded and colonized these countries, these countries have lived in a cycle of subjugation, oppression, and torture. These countries live under the burden of totalitarianism, backwardness, and ideological and social decay. 'From Tangier to Jakarta' - that is the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Al-Tahrir Party. From Tangier to Jakarta, all you see is poverty, totalitarianism, and decay..."

Interviewer: "And they talk about Islamic platforms..."

Nidhal Na'isa: "This platform has been failing for 1,400 years, and now they say to you: 'We will revive this platform.' Brother, if this platform was politically successful, we would welcome it, and would hope that people live a life of happiness. But this platform has brought nothing but wars and conflicts. People from the same country have become enemies because of these platforms, these lies, this animosity, this sectarianism, and this tribal fanaticism, which was revived by those Bedouins who invaded and colonized these countries.

"Egypt, Iraq, and Syria have been centers of civilization since the dawn of history. They gave rise to civilization. Every day the sun rose, civilization shone on them. But when those Bedouins went in, they destroyed these countries, which have never recovered since. Since those Bedouins entered these countries, they have never recovered. They have become decaying countries, suffering from poverty, misery, and tyranny."

[...]

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "First of all, who are these Bedouins to whom you refer?'

Nidhal Na'isa: "The Bedouins who invaded these countries."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "What Bedouins?"

Nidhal Na'isa: "You know them perfectly well."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "No, I don't."

Nidhal Na'isa: "Yes, you do. Who invaded those countries? Who conquered them by the sword?"

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "I'm asking you..."

Nidhal Na'isa: "You know them...They were colonialist Bedouins..."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "Brother, I have the right to ask you what you meant..."

Nidhal Na'isa: "The Bedouins who came from the Arabian Peninsula."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "Who were they exactly? Do you mean the Bedouins of Najd in modern times?"

Nidhal Na'isa: "In modern times and in ancient times."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "What do you mean?"

Nidhal Na'isa: "In modern times, they have invaded these countries, armed with petrodollars and Wahabism..."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "The Bedouins who conquered these countries, according to you..."

Nidhal Na'isa: "They invaded them by means of the sword..."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "They were the first Muslims, the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Those were the Bedouins you are referring to." [...]

"Western Civilization is Not Really a Civilization"

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "When they entered Andalusia, they brought Europe out of the darkness of the Middle Ages. They established a civilization for which the Spaniards still long today. Spain found itself under the burden of the fanaticism and racism of Ferdinand, Pope Urban, and others, and so the Spaniards lament the loss of that heritage. The Jews who immigrated and founded America excelled in comparison with the other immigrants, because they stole the heritage of the Muslims."

[...]

"In Andalusia, which you say, the Muslims conquered by the sword, they left a civilization unparalleled throughout history to this day. Western civilization is not really a civilization, brother."

Nidhal Na'isa: "Western civilization is not really a civilization?"

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "You listen to me! You listen to me!"

Nidhal Na'isa: "How did you come here from Egypt in two hours? On camels, it used to take you over six months to make a pilgrimage."

[...]

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "Your concept of progress and backwardness are mistaken. This materialistic, technological progress, which gave rise to homosexuality even among the Church's clergyman and monks, who even perform same-sex marriages, is not a civilization. It is decay, in the true human sense and in the true moral sense. This runs counter to everything humanity has accepted in its long history."

[..]

"When the Muslims, with their Koran, tell the believers about Paradise, and the pleasant life therein, about the black-eyed virgins, and about those boys of whom you spoke - did they present the boys of Paradise like your boys, and the boys of America and the homosexuals? Did the Koran tell you such a thing?! Where is it written? Can you prove that any Muslim - reasonable or crazy, scholar or layman - ever interpreted that the boys of Paradise serve as fodder for homosexuals and people with vile desires, whose nature has been twisted?"…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments (2)

Saddam’s WMDs: “They were a clear and present danger and continue to exist in some unknown locale,” according to some; “They were a complete fraud, a pretext for greedy Americans to invade Iraq and scoop up its crude, dude,” say others. As John Loftus explains in FrontPage Magazine, it appears that neither side got it right:

We live in an age of documents. There are no more secrets, only deferred disclosures. Saddam Hussein's secret documents are measured by the shelf-mile and stored inside a secure but dusty facility near U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and in several subsidiary sites. Armed guards protect the unread dossiers. Three shifts of two hundred translators each work around the clock. Perhaps 5% of these captured documents have been studied so far, but their contents are about to shatter much of the conventional wisdom concerning Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at the disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq.[1] Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003, but were stolen from under the Americans’ noses and sent to Syria. Syria is one of eight countries in the world that never signed a treaty banning WMD, and now is the storehouse for much of what remains of Saddam's WMD Empire. This was the target of the recent Israeli air strike...

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments

Persian gall: If there were a Nobel Prize for Chutzpah (and some people say there already is one, since that’s what the Nobel Peace Prize has become), the Iranians would win hands down.  From Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A senior Iranian cleric said the United States should apologize to the Islamic Republic after the U.N. nuclear watchdog released a report which Tehran said showed it had been telling the truth about its atomic plans.

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a conservative member of an influential clerical body, said Iran would not back down "even one iota from defending its basic rights" in pursuing nuclear energy -- echoing frequent statements by Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"America must apologize to the great Iranian nation for lying to the world's public opinion," Khatami told Friday worshippers in a sermon broadcast live on state radio.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in its report on Thursday that Iran had made important strides towards clarifying past nuclear activities.

But the Vienna-based U.N. body also said key questions remained unresolved and that Iran had significantly expanded uranium enrichment, a process to make fuel for power plants that can also provide material for nuclear bombs.

Iran says it only wants electricity from atomic energy…

So the holy rollah wants the U.S. to “apologize” for its accusations. Meanwhile he flagrantly and unappoligetically purveys the most odiferous b.s. (a.k.a. taqiyah).

Give that man a prize!

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link | comments

Wahhabis rule: Sure, Hu and Moo may try to steal the show when they turn up at the OPEC confab in Riyadh this weekend, but at the end of the day the Saudis are still top of the heap. From MSNBC:

…Never a very cohesive group, OPEC is loosely divided into two main camps. The Saudi-led group of sparsely populated Persian Gulf nations tends to favor relative moderation in pricing to avoid destroying demand. The more-heavily populated countries are content to watch prices -- and revenue -- climb higher. But the two sides are not very far apart.

"In our opinion, the real price of oil is not the one we're observing," said Iran's new oil minister, Gholamhossein Nozari, who arrived here yesterday. But he showed little anxiety about its impact on consuming countries: "We are seeing that growth is continuing. It seems that countries have been resilient in the past few years and able to cope with high oil prices."

Ultimately, power in OPEC is wielded largely by Saudi Arabia, which holds the overwhelming majority of the cartel's spare production capacity. That, plus its willingness to trim production to boost prices, makes Saudi Arabia the group's swing producer.

"OPEC is an organization that is supposed to have a big say on the market," said a Saudi government strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak for the government. "Instead, it is an organizational front for the policy of one country while giving a lot of publicity to countries that wouldn't get as much attention otherwise."…

Sounds like the anonymous flak isn’t at all thrilled at the prospect of the despicable duo—pygmies, as far as he’s concerned—hogging the spotlight.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:39 | link | comments

The three meshuganeh Musketeers: First she falsely claimed that the vast majority of Palestinians were in favour of a two state solution. Now, in another instance of her shocking inability to perceive reality, Condi Rice is claiming that the vast majority of Israelis are in favour of “withdrawal.” And she’s not the only one in the grip of this dangerous delusion. From israelinsider:

"The future of the Middle East is at stake," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dramatically told the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities Tuesday in Nashville (see video), telling the 3,500 assembled delegates that the US would lead the battle against extremists in the region.

Rice promised the US would not give up its efforts to isolate Iran until it stopped supporting violence in the region. "The international community must not allow a state to develop nuclear capability" if it threatens to destroy another member state, she said, asking, "how can the idea of an international community have any meaning if we fail this test?"

Rice said the same held true in the Palestinian theatre. The Islamic movement Hamas is now faced with the responsibilities of governance, she said, which force it to choose between "terror and being a political party. Hamas chose violence," she continued, and is now isolated by the international community.

"Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is in the strategic interest of the United States," she added, and affirmed that the US would staunchly defend "its ally Israel." Rice said that the new peace initiative of the Bush administration's strategy centered on "addressing the character of a Palestinian State" and making it democratic.

"We intend to hold a serious and substantive meeting in Annapolis," she declared, saying the meeting would "not replace the road map." She did not say what she expected Annapolis to produce, but told the delegates that "we can and must succeed; failure is not an option."

However, she misrepresented public opinion polls, asserting that "almost all" Israelis support unilateral withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, and handovers of territory to the Palestinian Authority, when in fact the opposite is the case.

The most recent poll, conducted by Ma'agar Mohot and sponsored by the Israel Policy Center for Promoting Parliamentary Democracy and Jewish Values in Israeli Public Life, an overwhelming majoity of Israelis opposed major concession of territory to the PA. Some 65% of respondents said that due to the lessons of 2005's disengagement from the Gaza Strip, they opposed a large withdrawal in the West Bank, and 61% said they opposed removing IDF soldiers from most of the West Bank and giving control over the territory to the Palestinians.

The reasons for the opposition were clear. In the event of a withdrawal, 55% believe the territory would be used to fire rockets at Israelis and 65% believe there is a high or very high chance that Hamas would take control of the area. Some 77% said Abbas lacked the power to prevent attacks from the West Bank.

In her speech, the US secretary of state alluded to the "difficult and painful sacrifices" Israel must make to meet the most excessive Palestinian demands as an ultimatum. She hinted at what Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni are holding back explicitly from the Israeli public: they have accepted deep withdrawals from the Judea and Samaria in favor of a Palestinian state, including the uprooting of 100,000 Israelis living there…

I would suggest that the future well-being of the Jewish state hinges on someone escorting the delusional trio of Condi, Tzipi and Ehud to a padded cell a.s.a.p.

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

Protocols of the Elders of Lexicography: As James Taranto notes, in a pinch you can blame the Jews for just about anything—including your dictionary difficulties. From OpinionJournal:

Yidden Meanings
The Concord (N.H.) Monitor misspelled a word the other day, and one reader blames the Jooz:

What is a "kafuffle"? It's not in the dictionary. Is it just another proofreading error? Or is it a further example of your acquiescence to the Israelization of American culture by attempting to pass obscure Yiddish words into the mainstream of the American language?

It's bad enough that we are steered toward war with the entire Arab world and beyond because our "friend" Israel won't relinquish its occupation of Palestine and make peace with its neighbors. Still we are suckered into giving Israel, the 14th richest country on earth, billions and billions of our tax dollars in foreign aid every year, and we gave it carte blanche to rampage through Lebanon destroying everything in its path and inflicting collective punishment on its people, an aggression internationally condemned as a war crime, yet condoned by the Bush administration and sheepishly accepted by the American people.

How can we hold our heads high and proud when our own county illegally attacks and invades an Arab country that had done nothing to us, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wrecking their entire infrastructure, clearly Bush war crimes, all for the benefit of Israel because Saddam was assisting the families of Palestinian martyrs in their struggle against the illegal Israeli occupation of their land? We shouldn't be proud to be associated with Israel, and I don't appreciate their insidious adulteration of our language.

PETER DAVIS
Laconia

He's a proster chamoole, this one. Besides, any shlub knows the proper spelling of "kafuffle" is "meshugas."

Moreover, he’s a groiser antisemit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:26 | link | comments

Poof positive that Mo ElBaradei and his nuclear watchkitties are on the wrong track: Iran hails nuclear report.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:17 | link | comments

Today’s loony p.c. story: Santas in Oz are being instructed to eschew the “ho ho ho” and replace it with a “ha ha ha.”  The reason?  “Ho” is a very bad word. From the CBC:

A Sydney newspaper reports that some Santas in Australia have been told not to say "ho, ho, ho" this Christmas because it could insult women, but the firm that hired and trained them denies it.

The tabloid Daily Telegraph revelled in the story Thursday, telling readers that "Santas across Sydney are rebelling against attempts to ban their traditional greeting of 'ho, ho, ho' in favour of 'ha, ha, ha.'"

"One would-be Santa has told the Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use 'ho, ho, ho' because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute," it said. "He also quit."

The Daily Telegraph is part of the news empire of Rupert Murdoch, whose holdings extend to the New York Post and Fox News in the United States and the Times, Sun and News of the World in London. Prominently featured stories on Wednesday included the reported breakup of a retired soccer player and his girlfriend, under the heading Footy Hunk's Mystery Split.

The villain of the Santa piece was Westaff, a firm that supplies temporary help — including hundreds of seasonal Santa Claus stand-ins — across Australia.

Westaff "has told its trainees that the 'ho ho ho' phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women," the newspaper said...

If children are frightened by “ho ho ho,” maybe they shouldn’t be sitting on Santa’s knee. What next? No more "Deck the Halls" because "don we now our gay apparel" could  be seen as a homosexual slur?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:09 | link | comments

Taliban “justice”: The Afghanazis strike again. From MSNBC:

KHOST, Afghanistan - Taliban militants shot dead a teenage boy in southeastern Afghanistan for teaching English to his classmates, police said on Thursday.

Taliban militants have killed a number of teachers and students in recent years for attending government-run schools, taking part in classes for girls or what the hardline Islamist militants consider un-Islamic subjects.

Armed men arrived at the school in the Sayed Karam district of Paktia province and grabbed a 16-year-old student and dragged him outsi

"Taliban militants took the boy out and killed him outside the school just because he was teaching English to his classmates," said General Esmatullah Alizai, the police chief of Paktia province.

Police arrived on the scene and in the ensuing gun battle, two policemen and two militants were killed, he said.

A Taliban spokesman denied the group was involved in the killing. The militants often deny carrying out unpopular actions. The Taliban are divided into a number of factions with no unified command and individual units act with a high degree of autonomy…

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:52 | link | comments

Blind felines: The UN Nuclear watch-kittens have more information than ever about the goings-on of the maniacal mullahs’ nuclear program. And yet—go figure—the more they have, the less they know. From Bloomberg:

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations nuclear agency said its knowledge of Iran's current atomic program is ``diminishing,'' even after the government in Tehran provided more information about past work.

``Since early 2006, the agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing,'' the International Atomic Energy Agency said today in a nine-page report on Iran. ``The agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing.''

It's the second IAEA report issued since Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei brokered a June accord with Iran giving UN inspectors more access to people and places involved with the country's nuclear work. Iran stopped observing an additional, voluntary protocol after its case was sent to the UN Security Council for sanctions. The protocol gives inspectors access to more sites than are normally available under IAEA rules.

The IAEA document is unlikely to satisfy U.S. diplomats, who are seeking to broaden economic and political sanctions against Tehran's government. The U.S. and some European countries suspect Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its uranium enrichment work is to generate electricity.

The Vienna-based agency was more upbeat on Iran's cooperation in answering questions about its past atomic work, including how it acquired the knowledge to build centrifuges.

``Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplification on issues,'' the IAEA said in the report. Answers given about ``centrifuge programs are consistent'' with inspectors' findings, the agency said.

Natanz Plant

Iran is operating 3,000 centrifuges at its underground enrichment plant in Natanz, the IAEA said. Inspectors had wanted answers to all their questions about Iran's past uranium enrichment program before Nov. 22, when the IAEA's 35-member board of governors convenes and receives the report.

``We're not expecting to see a little bit more information here and a little bit more information there,'' Gregory Schulte, the U.S. envoy to the IAEA, said yesterday. ``What the Security Council wants to understand is what are they doing today and why are they not suspending those proliferation-sensitive activities that the Security Council has directed they suspend.''

While inspectors are learning more about Iran's 20 years of concealed atomic activities, they're falling behind in their ability to understand recent Iranian advances, senior UN officials familiar with the investigation said. Iran has probably boosted the quality and quantity of centrifuges it's able to produce since barring inspectors from factories in 2006, they said.

Far be it from me to suggest that Nobel laureate Mo ElBaradei and his prize-winning minions are ignoring the signs of impending nuclear catastrophe because they’re crooked. More likely it’s just that they’re clueless, craven and stupid.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments

Sour lemon: Lululemon Athletica, purveyor of over-priced yoga togs along with the whole virtuous yoga “lifestyle,” has been knocked off its holier-than-thou marketing perch. Seems the company has been making claims about its clothing—that its t-shirts are made with seaweed, and “releases marine amino acids, minerals and vitamins into the skin upon contact with moisture”—that have been found by the New York Times to be utterly fraudulent.

My question: You mean people actually believed this nonsense—that their t-shirts were fortified with chemicals that would be released upon contact into their skin? How did they think that worked exactly? Magic? Osmosis? And how long did they think the t-shirts retained their potency? Through one, two, three washings? Though more? Indefinitely?

It just goes to show you that you can bamboozle some of the people some of the time, and some of the people none of the time. As for Lululemon aficionados—who no doubt continue to believe company claims that their workout gear is infused with such exotica as bamboo, charcoal, soybeans, coconut and silver (which, frankly, holds little appeal for those of us who think charcoal belongs in barbecues and coconut in pina coladas)—it appears you can fool most of them most of the time.

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

Bloody libel: Way back when (and in some parts of the Arab world today), Jews were said to kidnap young Gentile lads and drain their blood to add piquancy to holiday baked goods. Today, of course, blood libel has gone high tech, as French journalists with an animus towards Israel use their skills to make it look as though Jews have wilfully and brutually murdered a young Palestinian boy.

As per Dante's Inferno, there's a special place in Hell reserved for blood libelists. They are trapped down a deep, dark well and force-fed stale matzoh for all eternity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:01 | link | comments

I(ran) spy: Here's an interesting one--Iran has charged a former nuclear negotiator with spying for the U.K.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:48 | link | comments

Love's young nightmare: The Dr. Phil Show today dealt with the plight of a 16-year-old American girl who was lookin' for love in all the wrong places--i.e., onliine. She found it in the form of a 20-year-old Palestinian from Jericho who got her to fall in love with him and whose father sent her an airplane ticket to come over to the West Bank for a visit. She was turned back by authorities but now, two years later, the silly girl is back in the West Bank with her slick talkin' guy, living with him and his family. His plan--supposedly--is to marry her and move to America. However, so far they've stayed put, and his words have gone from mushy-gushy to nasty-abusive; he's now calling "slut", "whore" and suchlike.

It's unclear at this stage whether the girl wants out--she may or may not have been signalling her desire her leave by using a code word known only to her and her family--or if she's genuinely in lurve with her swain. Stay tuned to tomorrow's show, when Dr. Phil subjects Abdullah to a good Texas grillin'.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:44 | link | comments

Israel rocks: Here's proof.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:14 | link | comments

N’Splode: In an effort to keep the young’uns moral after school and out of trouble, Hamas has launched its own version of the Backstreet Boys. From the Jerusalem Post:

…A Hamas official told Sky News on Wednesday that the five-member Protectors of the Homeland, made up of members of Hamas's police force in Gaza, was founded to "raise [the public's] spirit through entertainment and encourage the troops."

The Hamas-affiliated PA police commander, Jamal al-Jarah, put the group together after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June. But the Protectors, rather than singing about love and sex, croon about Hamas heroes, Islamist values, and love for Palestine.

One song addresses the issue of Jerusalem and Jihad: "O Jerusalem, rest assured we are the sacrifice. I will not retreat from my Jihad, I will not back down," the lyrics promise.

Group member Hussam Abu Abdu told Sky News that the group, which preforms wearing camouflage uniforms, aims "to entertain, to help ease the people's suffering. And at the same time we deliver a message about morals and values."

Catchy words. And here’s another of the lethal lads’ tunes—a reworking of that old Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons favourite,“Sherry”:

Sharia, sharia baby.

Sharia, sharia baby.

 

Sha-a-a-a-a-a-ree-ah bay-ay-bee.

Sharia is the law that’s for me.

Law, law, law that’s for me-ee.

 

(Why don’t you get it) and then we’ll have no more war.

(Get it) and all drop to the floor.

(Get it) and no more Jewish woes—

That Zionist entity blow-owe-owe-owes.

 

Sha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ree-ah bay-ay-by.

Sharia is the law that’s for you.

Law, law, the only law that’ll do-oo

Law, law, the only law that’ll do-oo.

You-oo-ooh better watch your sister.

See that her “honour’s” alright.

 

(She shouldn’t come out) with her red dress on.

(Come out) and thus be gazed upon.

(Come out) and get defiled and soiled.

Don't let her be that kind of goil.

 

Sha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ree-ah bay-ay-by.

Sharia’s the only law that’ll do.

Do, do, best for infidels, too.

Do, do, best for infidels, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:46 | link | comments

In praise of prejudice: Not of the bigotted kind. Of the "I have come to an informed conclusion based upon what I know to be good and true" kind.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:34 | link | comments

The Bush administration's anti-terrorism philosophy: Float like a bee; sting like a butterfly.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:30 | link | comments

What most Palestinians believe: Go figure—it’s not what Condi Rice would have us believe they believe. From the New York Sun:

Speaking earlier this month at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Rice expressed her fear that if "Palestinian reformers" could not "deliver on the hope of an independent state," the "moderate center could collapse forever." She spoke about the need to take "great chances for the sake of peace" in light of "the opportunity that now exists."

"Most Palestinians," Ms. Rice said, "believe that Israel will always be their neighbor and most believe that no Palestinian state will ever be born through violence." It is unlikely that there have been any Palestinian public opinion polls asking the question, "Do you believe Israel will always be your neighbor?" or "Do you believe a Palestinian state will ever be born through violence?"

But there have been several public opinion polls over the last few months asking other questions. The answers cast doubt on whether there is in fact a "moderate center" or whether it would be satisfied with an "independent state" — or, for that matter, whether Fatah and its leaders constitute "Palestinian reformers."

In a joint Palestinian-Israeli public opinion poll in June, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace found that only 60% of Palestinians agreed that, after reaching a permanent agreement on all issues of the conflict, there should be recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people.

In other words, about 40% opposed the recognition of a Jewish state — even after a resolution of "all issues of the conflict." The PCPSR conducted another poll in September, in which 41% opposed recognition of a Jewish state even after the "solution of all the issues of the conflict."

Even the 60% who would recognize a Jewish state — after "solution of all the issues in the conflict" — do not likely have a realistic "solution" in mind. In the PCPSR September poll, only 46% of Palestinians supported a permanent resolution based on the 1967 borders with an equal land swap for Israeli settlements in 5% of the West Bank — a resolution that exceeds even the overly generous Clinton Parameters.

The Jerusalem Media and Communications Center conducted a poll in late August. In that poll, 82% of Palestinians opposed allowing Israel to keep control of major settlement blocs in the West Bank in exchange for equal Israeli land. Nearly 70% wanted the refugee issue resolved by return of all refugees to "their original land," not a new Palestinian state.

Since the "right of return" is a non-starter across the entire Israeli spectrum, this amounts to a super-majority of Palestinians who have no realistic peace proposal in mind…

Not  so. Their “peace” proposal is, in the words of David Byrne, same as it ever was: the Jews must am-scray and let the Arabs take charge.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:12 | link | comments

Oy vey: A true believer memorializes her beloved leader. From ZNet (not in a million years to be confused with YNet):

For fifty years, Yasser Arafat - or Abu Ammar as he is more familiarly known - made the Palestinian cause his life's journey, and along the way, be became the undisputed leader of the Palestinian people. His passion spilled over into three words "Don't forget Palestine" - words he wrote to Egypt's first President in 1953 when he was still a student, and words which remained his mantra to the end. He lived and breathed Palestine, but sadly, he did not survive to see an independent Palestinian state.

While the dream eluded him, Arafat was still looked upon as "father of the nation", a man who had almost single-handedly put Palestine back on the world stage when the very name Palestine had been practically obliterated from the history books and maps, and its people had been deemed non-existent. Naturally, as one would expect after fifty years of controversial public life, there are those who love him and those who hate him, the praise and the slander each creating their own version of the man.  Some criticisms are valid: most have been manufactured. Yet, Arafat managed to keep his head above the madding crowd, determined always to bring his people home from the wilderness.

Like all liberation leaders, Yasser Arafat had to struggle against the tide of influential powers, and even world opinion, but none were ever in Arafat's precarious position - pitted against a powerful enemy, surrounded by ambitious Arab leaders from neighbouring countries, thwarted by an interfering Western world, unable to operate from within his own country, without a well-equipped army, his people dispersed throughout the world, and internationally unrecognised. Against such overwhelming odds, Arafat continually had to navigate the shifting sands of intrigue and sabotage, and he made mistakes. But, as the eminent Palestinian doctor, Haidar Abd-al-Shafi pointed out "Whenever the need arose to make a courageous decision, all the others disappeared and Arafat was left alone. He was the only one who had the courage to decide."

He was beloved. Arafat always sat amongst his people, never in palaces. Friends and visitors found his warmth engaging and his interest genuine.  Stories abound of how Arafat would offer a morsel of chicken or some other delicacy from his own plate to tempt a guest - it was his form of breaking bread. Even in his last years, he chose to remain in the besieged and rotting Ramallah compound with his people rather than abandon them or his country for a more comfortable life in exile. For all that, Arafat was a lonely man. He had sacrificed what other men wouldn't and couldn't for Palestine.

When Arafat was born sometime in August, 1929, his destiny was fated to be burdensome. His birth name alone carried the weight of family pedigree - Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat Al-Qudwa al-Husseini. His birthplace, often disputed - Cairo or Jerusalem - saw him move from one city to the other so much so that either could just as well have been his home. Perhaps some foresaw his future and determined to call him Yasser meaning easy, but there was nothing easy in the path he chose whilst studying engineering at Cairo University. It was there that he became actively involved with the politics of Palestine, and by 1958, he and some friends had founded the Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which then produced a magazine advocating armed resistance against Israel.

Al-Fatah was not recognised by the Arab states because Syria, Jordan and Egypt had formed their own group called the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in a bid to control a political imbroglio fomenting within their midst. However, the humiliating defeat of the Arab States in the 1967 war - having lost the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank - saw Arafat's Fatah movement rise to prominence due to Arafat's guerrilla tactics which had achieved a considerable measure of success against Israel. This was a turning point for Arafat.  He realised that if the Palestinians were ever to succeed, they could only rely on themselves, and in 1968, thousands of Palestinians had joined the ranks of Fatah, hailing Arafat as their hero and their leader.

It was natural that Arafat should take on the mantle of Chairman of the PLO after the Arab losses, although his guerrilla attacks against Israel worried the leaders of some Arab countries because they preferred a more conciliatory approach, which would primarily benefit them. Not long after Jordan expelled him and his followers, accusing him of setting up "a state within a state". For the next 25 years, he operated from inside Lebanon and then Tunis before finally setting foot in Palestine. This added to the many difficulties Arafat faced in holding the liberation movement together. The fact that he managed this for the years he spent outside Palestine, speaks volumes about his command and influence, and more importantly, his sensitivity to the nuances of all the different factions, passions, opinions, and pressures that surrounded him.

However, Arafat never saw armed struggle as the only solution, and indeed when he realised that Israel could not be vanquished by force after the 1973 defeat of Egypt and Syria, he began negotiating with Israel. One of his greatest victories came on 13 November 1974, when Arafat was invited to address the UN General Assembly for the first time as leader of a legitimate people - the Palestinians. In a dramatic speech, he called on the international community to decide between an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun.

For the next 14 years, Arafat worked with incredible patience, always sensitive to the passions arising from his people's overwhelming pain. It was a slow process of dialogue and a gradual introduction of his ideas.  But, in all that time, he never neglected to support the men who were still fighting in Lebanon. Both in 1982 and 1983, he stood with them against the Israeli General Sharon who had invaded Lebanon to drive out the Palestinians and to kill him. Both times, Arafat left to fight another day, refusing to surrender.  Those who fought with him will never forget his courage and that he, like them, was ready to die for the cause…

Like Ernst Zundel waxing nostalgic over Der Fuhrer.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:28 | link | comments

Not yet ready for prime time: The Palestinians are killing each other--again. But don't let that fool you. Of all people of the world waiting for a chance at self-determination--the Kurds, the Basques, etc.--the Palestinians are still numero uno on the list of those deserving of statehood.

What do the Palestinians have that those others don't? Isn't it obvious? They can't claim to be the "victims" of the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

The students that pray together, slay together: John Perazzo in FrontPage Magazine has a piece about some more campus hijinks—the delightfully Nazi-esque goings-on of the Muslim Student Union at the University of California (Irvine):

If one were to judge the Muslim Student Union (MSU) of the University of California at Irvine (UCI) solely on the basis of its self-description and its stated mission, one would have no inkling of the volcano of Jew-hatred that animates this organization. Founded in 1992 by a small group of Muslim students who “desired to establish an Islamic presence on campus,” MSU says it aims to provide a “community” or “family” atmosphere for Muslims enrolled at UCI, and to build “an environment that enhances good, discourages bad, and provides networks of resources, knowledge, people, and companionship to its members.” Toward these ends, MSU offers “daily congregational prayers, daily free iftars [the evening meal for breaking the daily fast] during Ramadan that serve over a hundred Muslims, over eight weekly classes, a quarterly magazine Alkalima, coalition building with other clubs on campus, and a gateway to the larger Muslim community …” MSU also provides career advice and a study/tutoring program to help Muslims at UCI.

It all sounds very, very nice.

What the Muslim Student Union does not mention in its literature, however, is that its members commonly wear green armbands during the events it sponsors, to signal their allegiance to the terrorist group Hamas. Nor is there any mention of the fact that MSU has displayed posters on the UCI campus that equate the Star of David with the Nazi Swastika.

MSU’s promotional literature is similarly silent about a February 2001 event where the organization hosted the radical cleric Muhammad al-Asi, who told his UCI audience: “The Zionist-Israeli lobby ... is taking the United States government and the United States people to the abyss. We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings. You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew.”

It should be noted that MSU was not the least bit unaware of Mr. al-Asi’s radical views when it invited him to speak on campus. Al-Asi’s Jew-hatred had been widely known for many years. Indeed as early as 1981, he was removed as Imam of the Washington, DC Islamic Center at the request of several Middle Eastern governments that were troubled by his pro-Khomeini rhetoric. Al-Asi also has close ties to Ahmed Huber, the neo-Nazi Swiss convert to Islam who once lauded Khomeini as the “living continuation of Adolf Hitler.” And advocating an “Islamic World Order,” al-Asi holds that the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by Israeli Mossad agents seeking to “criminalize Muslims.”

MSU’s alliance with al-Asi is hardly what one would expect from an organization that “enhances good, discourages bad.” But in fact, this alliance represents only the tip of a very large iceberg.

In 2002, a sign posted on the UCI campus by MSU stated: “Israelis Love to Kill Innocent Children.” That same year, MSU sponsored a speech by the radical Oakland imam, Abdel Malik-Ali, who said: “Israel wants Palestinians to have their own state. It’s beyond that now. No. That’s off the table. One state. Majority rules. Us. The Muslims.”

A favorite guest speaker of MSU, Malik-Ali is an African-American convert to Islam, a former Nation of Islam member, and a longtime supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. His more infamous remarks include the claim that Jews staged the 9/11 attacks “to give an excuse to wage war against Muslims around the world”; that “[t]he wars against Iraq [Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom] were manufactured by the Jews in America to avert attention from the two [Palestinian] Intifadahs”; and that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a “pretty good guy.”

On February 26, 2004, MSU again brought Malik-Ali to the UCI campus to deliver a speech titled “America under Siege: The Zionist Hidden Agenda.” According to UCI’s student newspaper: “[Malik-Ali] implied that Zionism is a mixture of ‘chosen people-ness and white supremacy’; that the Iraqi war is in the process of ‘Israelization’; that the Zionists had the ‘Congress, the media and the FBI in their back pocket’; that the downfall of former Democratic [presidential] front-runner Howard Dean was due to the Zionists; and that the Mossad [Israel’s intelligence agency] would have assassinated Al Gore if he was elected [in 2000] just to bring Joe Lieberman (his Jewish vice-president) to power.”

In the spring of 2004, MSU and the Society of Arab Students (SAS) co-sponsored their fourth annual “Zionism Awareness Week,” during which both groups again wore green armbands to signal their support for Hamas.

In June 2004, MSU asked UCI’s graduating Muslim students to wear green sashes inscribed with the word “shahada,” the Arabic word for the “martyrdom” of a suicide bomber, to their graduation ceremony. Two dozen students complied with this MSU request.

At a February 2005 MSU-organized event held in the center quad at UC Irvine, guest speaker Abdel Malik-Ali told his audience of some 150 mostly Muslim listeners: “Zionism is a mixture, a fusion of the concept of white supremacy and the chosen people.” He complained about Zionist domination of the American media, Zionist complicity in America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Zionists’ inclination to recount the horrors of the Holocaust “when you accuse them of their Nazi behavior.” “One state. Majority rule,” he said. “Check that out. Us. The Muslims.”

At a March 2006 panel discussion at UC Irvine, MSU led as many as 1,000 Muslim students in a protest against the decision of the event’s sponsors to publicly display some “offensive” Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, cartoons that had recently set off massive demonstrations and riots throughout the Muslim world. Donning their customary green, pro-Hamas armbands, MSU members initiated the protest by kneeling on their green prayer mats and reciting an Arabic prayer. When a crowd of counter-protesters sang “God Bless America,” the Muslim students responded with chants of: “Hey Republicans Stop the Hate! All You Do Is Instigate,” and “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho! The Prophet’s Cartoons Have Got to Go!”

MSU organized a May 2006 “Holocaust in the Holy Land” event featuring four days of anti-Israel lectures and presentations that portrayed the Jewish State as the modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany. The event was keynoted by the Holocaust-denier Norman Finkelstein, whose speech, titled “Obstacles to Peace: Israelis or Palestinians,” identified Israel as the world’s worst violator of human rights. Adjacent to a mock Israeli “apartheid” wall which they had erected in the center of the UCI campus, MSU students distributed fliers titled “Exploiting the Holocaust to Justify Genocide,” and bearing a quote from Finkelstein himself: “The Holocaust has become the ideological justification for the oppression of the Palestinian people.” Other guest speakers at the week’s festivities included Abdel Malik-Ali; Muhammad al-Asi, whose speech was titled “Hamas: The People’s Choice”; and Rabbi David Weiss of Neturei Karta (an ultra-orthodox, PLO-tied Jewish group that opposes Israel’s existence), whose speech was called “Zionism Hijacking Judaism.”

Abdel Malik-Ali was the featured speaker at an October 5, 2006 MSU event, where he told a crowd of some 200 cheering students: “They [Jews] think they are superman, but we, the Muslims, are kryptonite. They [Jews] know that their days are numbered.”

In May 2007, MSU sponsored an “Israel: Apartheid Resurrected” week which featured a series of speeches and demonstrations condemning the State of Israel. On May 17, MSU’s longtime favorite -- Abdel Malik-Ali -- delivered a lecture titled “UC Intifada: How you can help Palestine,” wherein he informed UCI’s Muslim students (who again wore green armbands as well as T-shirts reading “UC Intifada” and “Freedom Fighter”) that no other form of death is as honorable as that of the martyr who dies while trying to kill Jews. Refusing to recognize Israel’s existence, Malik-Ali referred to that country not by its name, but only as the “Zionist Apartheid State.”…

Or ZAP for short. Here’s the ZAP anthem (to the tune of Yankee Doodle):

ZAP, we know it drives you mad

That Jews have got a nation

And you’re doing what you can

To revoke its creation.

ZAP, so you all whinge and seethe

Like Hitler and Joe Goebbels

And we see how once again

The Jew-hate crests and snowballs.

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

Campus low-jinks: On Western university campuses, students are indoctrinated in the anti-Western ideology of their professors, and woe betide anyone who steps out of line and refuses to embrace the prevailing orthodoxy. On Iran’s university campuses—ditto. By David J. Rusin on Pajamas Media:

…While U.S. academic institutions now bend over backwards — some might say too far backwards — to promote a diverse campus, their Iranian counterparts proceed from a very different set of ideals. This is particularly apparent in the vexing maze of barriers deployed to thwart the matriculation of Bahais, adherents to a faith that the mullahs deem illegitimate.

 

Bahais comprise Iran’s largest non-Muslim minority. They worship one God but recognize a broad series of divine messengers spanning Eastern and Western traditions. Though the sect is peaceful and shuns politics, Bahais have long been persecuted as apostates from Islam. Repression has escalated in recent years, possibly due to the ascendancy of the Hojjatieh, a secretive and militantly anti-Bahai organization that coalesced in 1953; Ahmadinejad is often reputed to be a member.

 

Iran’s educational establishment contributes to this campaign. Just days before the Columbia fiasco, Human Rights Watch noted that 800 of the 1,050 Bahais who took the summer 2007 standardized entrance exam have been unable to obtain their scores, thus halting the application process before it begins. “One student said that an official told him they had ‘received orders from above not to score the tests of Bahai students.’” Another official remarked that a student “would be able to receive his test scores only if his family renounced their faith.”

 

This episode is just the latest in a series of indignities suffered by Iranian Bahais who simply desire to learn. Prior to 2004, exam forms had mandated that students identify their religious affiliation from a list of pre-approved options. “Bahai” was never among them, resulting in rejection by default. While this requirement was dropped and 178 Bahais enrolled in the fall of 2006, at least seventy had been expelled by the following February. Finally, Bahai academies that aim to circumvent the state system are subjected to frequent raids and property seizures.

 

The paper trail places these actions in their proper context. A 1991 memorandum distributed by the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council proclaims that Bahais “must be expelled from universities, either in the admission process or during the course of their studies.” A leaked 2006 letter from the headquarters of Payame Noor University conveys similar instructions to its regional branches.

 

Religious issues alone do not drive academic discrimination in Iran; the freedoms of expression and association are treated with equal contempt. Western institutions commit their own sins in this area, enacting speech codes and other instruments of ideological control. However, outright denials of access based on political views remain thankfully rare in this part of the world. The Islamic Republic is not so gracious toward its nonconformists.

 

Two blatant examples come to mind. First, students protesting the closure of a reformist newspaper were violently suppressed in July 1999. An unknown number were killed and others were dispatched to the notorious Evin Prison. Second, Iranian higher education has witnessed a rolling purge since the election of 2005. This has included forced retirements, the installation of a cleric at the head of Tehran University, and Ahmadinejad’s call for students to oust secular professors.

 

Away from the cameras, real or imagined dissidents face an array of more subtle obstacles. An October 2006 HRW backgrounder catalogs seventeen students barred from either completing their degrees or registering for programs to which they had been accepted. Sixteen of them are known activists or members of pro-reform Islamic Student Associations; the other happens to be the daughter of a persecuted intellectual. Dozens more were suspended for up to two semesters by campus disciplinary committees.

 

The motive underlying these exclusions is made clear by the scores of students who have been allowed to register only after signing a pledge “to observe all ideological, political, and moral regulations within the current legal framework, in particular the university’s disciplinary regulations. I understand that in case of any instance of acting against the terms of this commitment letter, the relevant officials are allowed to cancel my registration and to prevent my further education.”

 

In a way, the students who have been expelled, intimidated, or otherwise kept in limbo are the fortunate ones. The HRW report lists thirty-five campus activists who were sentenced to fines, imprisonment, and even lashings by the Iranian Judiciary during the 2005-2006 academic year. More recently, eight student journalists were jailed in the run-up to Islamic Student Association elections this spring. Another group of students was detained in July for protesting the aforementioned arrests.

 

Such incidents expose the true character of the Islamic Republic, a dystopia where the educational establishment is wielded as a weapon against undesirable sects and individuals. They also underscore the confusion plaguing Western universities. Boycotts against Israeli schools are the cause du jour for campus progressives, but the overt persecution of Bahais and student activists in Iran is an uncomfortable truth to be dropped down the memory hole…

 

Something you’ll never see at the University of Toronto or other North American campuses: Iran (or Saudi Arabia) Apartheid Week. But then, there’s also never any suggestion on campuses that those nations should, as per hysterical anti-Zionism, cease to be.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:22 | link | comments

AP shills for Fatah: He was a vile, Jew-hating, taqiyaah-spewing  kleptocrat who helped inaugurate the modern era of Islamic terrorism, but you won’t read any of that in this AP account of the third anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death. (I have bolded the phrases that made me want to reach for the Gravol):

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Tens of thousands of Palestinians packed a memorial service for the late Yasser Arafat on Sunday, an event used to rally support for his successor, President Mahmoud Abbas, as he prepares for peace talks with Israel.

Speaking under a giant mural of a smiling Arafat at the burial site of the longtime Palestinian leader, Abbas repeatedly invoked Arafat's memory in an attempt to bolster his own leadership. He pledged to lead the Palestinians to independence and took aim at his rivals, the violent Islamic Hamas.

"Our strategic decision is peace," said Abbas, echoing one of Arafat's favorite slogans.

Abbas has been meeting regularly with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ahead of a peace conference in Annapolis, Md., later this month. The conference is expected to launch Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which broke down in violence seven years ago.

But a new hitch arose Sunday when chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said his delegation, on its way to meet with Israel's foreign minister, was held up at an Israeli roadblock for 25 minutes. An angry Qureia said he and the other negotiators returned home because of the humiliation.

"We will propose never to conduct negotiations in Israel again," he said.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel regretted the incident and pledged it would be investigated.

Briefing ministers at Sunday's weekly Cabinet meeting, military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin warned that Hamas could try to foil the forthcoming conference, an official who attended the closed-door meeting said.

"He said he saw Hamas stepping up its efforts to carry out acts of terrorism if Annapolis looks like being a success," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity according to civil service rules.

Sunday's rally, marking the third anniversary of Arafat's death, was attended by tens of thousands of supporters of Fatah, the group Arafat founded in the 1960s and led until he died in 2004.

The turnout at the annual service was the largest since Arafat's death, in large part because of Fatah's concern about the rise of Hamas.

Hamas forces overran the Gaza Strip in June, defeating Fatah's loyalists in five days of fighting.

Abbas responded by expelling Hamas from the Palestinian government, and has moved to cement Fatah's grip on power in the West Bank since then. Many in the crowd at Sunday's rally held yellow Fatah flags, and public schools and government offices—both seen as Fatah strongholds—closed early to allow people to attend the memorial.

The crowd overflowed into the streets around the government compound in Ramallah where it was held.

Though he lacks Arafat's guerrilla-fighter charisma, the soft-spoken Abbas used the rally to emphasize his position as heir to Arafat.

Israelis have mixed views of Arafat. Some recognize him as a pioneer who signed the first Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in 1993. Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, along with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

But many Israelis hold him responsible for the second Palestinian uprising, which broke out in late 2000 as peace talks were faltering. More than 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis have died in violence since then…

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:48 | link | comments

Taking Tarik’s measure: The EU dhimmis’ favourite Salafist, Tarik Ramadan, says Bush, Blair and the Jews are to blame for radical Islam. Refreshingly—and daringly—British Labour MP Denis McShane begs to differ. From the Guardian:

…One of the constant lies of the current debate over terrorism is that it is all the fault of George Bush and Tony Blair. The best-known Swiss in Britain today is Tariq Ramadan, the most interesting of Europe's political Islamists. He wrote recently that the 'invasion of Iraq, blind support for the insane policies of George Bush, British silence on the oppression of the Palestinians have a direct bearing on the deep discontent shared by many Muslims towards the West in general, and towards Britain in particular'.

 

Ramadan's views are standard tropes for many on the liberal-left in Europe. Not just the left. The new centre-right government in Poland wants to leave Iraq and David Cameron said that Britain should not drop the idea of intervention. But as the families of those killed a decade ago remember those dreadful murders on the Nile, can Bush and Blair be blamed as the inspirers of the killing of Swiss tourists? Or what in 1995 inspired the Paris Metro bombing which killed eight? The 1995 Islamist campaign of violence in France was financed from London by the Algerian Islamist fundamentalist Rachid Ramda. British ministers, lawyers and judges protected Ramda from French justice for a full decade. Finally in 2005, Ramda was sent back to face the justice he was long protected from. He has just been sentenced to life.

Then comes the argument that Osama bin Laden was, as London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, puts it 'a simple businessman until he met the CIA' which encouraged him to launch jihad in Afghanistan against the dying Soviet empire. But this does not explain why Islamists killed, in cold blood, Anwar Sadat, the courageous Egyptian president who went to the Knesset to talk peace with Israel long before Blair was in Parliament and before the Soviets arrived in Kabul.

So if we follow history's thread back we have to leave the contemporisation of the debate. Something deeper is going on. To discuss this in religious terms is repugnant for many. But history is full of faiths sanctioning political murders to advance a cause.

The violence of faith takes many forms. A university report has just been published on the material available in British mosques, Muslim schools and bookshops. It reveals a violent brew of anti-semitism, misogyny and homophobia which inculcates a loathing for fellow citizens who do not conform to the rules of Islamist ideologues.

The report scrupulously quotes extracts from books and pamphlets widely available in mosque bookshops. The response of the Muslim Council of Britain was to attack the research. Instead of calling on mosques to empty themselves of such hate material, the MCB called for the report to be ignored. This arrogant dismissal does no service to Muslims.

Some are trying to move forward. As a young militant, Tariq Ramadan made statements on Jews, gays and women which do not read well today. But at a recent debate he supported Israel's right to exist. Citing the example of Turkey's ruling Law and Development party which has its roots in political Islam, Ramadan held up the tantalising prospect of Islamist politics leaving behind its support for words and acts that have caused so much damage to Muslims over the past century.

It is not too late. Ramadan's language is elusive, debating with him is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork. At an Oxford University seminar he is the acceptable face of Islamism. But until the hate material is removed from sale and democratically accountable Muslim leaders emerge to contest the theologians of terrorism, anti-semitism, misogyny and homophobia in Riyadh, Cairo, Qatar and Tehran, the birth of democratic European Islamist politics is unlikely.

Viva McShane, a Brit who “gets it.” He must be very lonely.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:15 | link | comments

Where’s Moqtada?: According to Newsweek, the Mahdi Army firebrand has been leading the quiet life in Najaf, hitting the books in an effort to climb through the ranks of the holy rollahs. (Newsweek entitles the piece “A Radical Cleric Gets Religion"—begging the question, “What the heck was it that he had before?”)

It wasn't so long ago that U.S. commanders considered Moqtada al-Sadr to be the greatest threat to stability in Iraq. Now the Shiite firebrand's stock among the Americans may be rising. Since declaring a ceasefire for his Mahdi Army militia last August, Sadr has effectively disappeared from public life, designating five trusted aides to speak on his behalf. NEWSWEEK has learned that some of those deputies have been secretly meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to discuss cooperation on improving security, according to two sources who declined to be identified because of the subject's sensitivity. The general's spokesman, Col. Steven Boylan, qualified that assertion, explaining that while Petraeus has not met with Sadr, "the command has indeed had direct engagements with some of his people within the [Sadr] organization … to assist with reconciliation efforts." Boylan also says the military "applauded" Sadr's ceasefire.

U.S. commanders say that the Mahdi Army's quiescence is a significant factor behind the recent drop in attacks in Baghdad—by a third compared with six months ago, according to one estimate. And they say they now share a common enemy: rogue Mahdi Army units, known as "special groups" and allegedly funded by Iran, who have declared they will not obey the ceasefire. Sadr loyalists have formed an elite unit called the "golden battalion" to go after these rebels; the Americans are hoping to encourage the more moderate leaders to distance the Mahdi Army even further from its "irreconcilable" wing. "Those elements, such as the special-group, extremist elements, have in fact dishonored Sadr's pledge of honor," says Boylan.

While U.S. forces have brokered local agreements between Sunni sheiks and Mahdi Army commanders in Baghdad, Sadr himself is staying above the fray. (A Sadr deputy, Sheik Salah al-Ubaidy, denies that any Sadrist officials have met with the Americans.) U.S. commanders think the 36-year-old cleric has temporarily relocated to Iran. But a source in the Shiite holy city of Najaf who also asked to remain anonymous says Sadr's gone underground there. He claims that Sadr is cracking the books, hoping to elevate himself to the level of hojat olIslam—one step below ayatollah. Some in the Shiite howza, the clerical elite that surrounds Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, scoff at the attempt. "His mentality does not allow him to reach higher levels of study," says one high-ranking howza scholar. But Sadr's instructors are thought to be followers of his assassinated father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, and they might be inclined toward grade inflation. In any event, U.S. commanders are just glad most of Sadr's gunmen are laying as low as Sadr is.

It’s hard to imagine that all that study is in any way going to “moderate” his outlook.

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

Pugnacious blowhard of American letters: I can sum up the literary career of the late Norman Mailer, now being lionized in death by those who genuflected to him while he was alive, in eight words: So much macho posturing; so much crappy prose.

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

Thought I’d share: From If I Am Not For Myself…The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews, by Ruth Wisse (1992):

Anti-Semitism discomfits liberals by forcing them to abandon their pacific, generous, optimistic view of the world in order to take into account of a specific, aggressive, and declared intention of destroying—yet again—the Jews. It forces Jews, in particular, into the humiliating position of having to modify their own ambitions in order to thwart the ambitions of their enemies. Many American Jews, preferring a life of their own choosing to a life dictated by Arab rejectionism, refuse to acknowledge the assault against their people whom they would otherwise be expected to assist. Having once embraced Israel as the solution to anti-Semitism, they now join in attacking it as the provocation of anti-Semitism, the only thing that can threaten their peace of mind. They rededicate themselves to liberalism, in the hope that its view of political nature will actually prevail, and in order to camouflage what would otherwise appear a cowardly defection from their people, for the second time in this century.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:52 | link | comments

A remembrance: When he was 17, my Uncle J. forged his mother’s signature and ran away to join the R.A.F. He was hoping to become a fighter pilot, a dream that was not to be since, unbeknownst to him, he was dreadfully colour blind. He had to settle for a job on the ground, and spent the duration of the war helping pilots take off and land; many, of course, were never to return.

Although he was still very young when the war ended, the rest of his life was profoundly marked by his wartime experiences, and he was so proud of having served.

My uncle, a sweet, sad man, passed away last spring. Today, on the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month, his adoring family will gather in the cemetery where he is buried and his gravestone will be unveiled. I can think of no more fitting way to remember—my uncle, as well all those who fought and who died in the cause of freedom.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments

Plain speaking in Spanish: Venezualan big mouth has been hanging around that old silver-tongued devil, Moo Ahmadinejad so much that his inimitable way with words seems to be rubbing off. Hu, who like Moo once described the American president, the object of their detestation, as being diabolical, hauled out a colourful turn of phrase to describe Spain’s former president, the one who preceded that spineless Mr. Bean look-a-like. In response, the King of Spain had some choice words for Hu. From AP via MSNBC:

SANTIAGO, Chile - The Ibero-American summit ended on an unusually heated note Saturday, when an angry verbal spat culminated with the king of Spain telling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to "shut up."

Chavez, the outspoken leftist leader who called President Bush "the devil" on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a "fascist."

Aznar, a conservative and a close Bush ally who backed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, "is a fascist," Chavez said in a speech to leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal. "Fascists are not human. A snake is more human."

Spain's current socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, responded during his own allotted time by urging Chavez to be more diplomatic in his words and respect other leaders despite political differences.

"Former President Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people," he said, eliciting applause from the gathered heads of state.

Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, but his microphone was off.

Spanish King Juan Carlos, seated next to Zapatero, angrily turned to Chavez and said, "Why don't you shut up?"…

How refreshingly un-diplomatic. I am about to pay the King the greatest of compliments: he’d never make it in the oleaginous corridors of the UN.

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

The insane suzerain stays mainly in Bahrain: For an evil nutter, that Tiny Hitler sure gets around.

The Beach Boys had T.H.'s number long ago:

Round round get around

He gets around, yeah.

Get around, round, round,

He gets around.

 

He gets around.

From town to town.

He’s a real hot head.

He wants to see Jews dead.

 

He’s getting’ bugged lyin’ up and down, the same old shtick.

He hopes that his nukes’ll be ready real quick.

 

The mullahs and he have fooled ElBaradei

And pretty soon we’ll see that there is hell to pay.

 

He gets around,

And they’ll be no safe ground.

They’ll push us all around.

The Entity they’ll pound.

 

He always smiles like a village idiot

But behind that grin, you know he just won't quit.

 

The sanctions till now have been too little, too late

And once again the world is leavin’ Jews to their fate.

He gets around
(Get around round round he gets around.)
From town to town.
(Get around round round he gets around.)
He’s a real hot head
(Get around round round he gets around.)
He wants to see Jews dead.
Get around round round he gets around
He gets around
Round
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah…

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

Mind your own beeswax, Fadallah: Lebanon’s shia holy rollah is trying to stir up a mess o’ potage in the Zionist entity. From Fars News Agency:

Memo to the Palestinian nation: you’re in the mullahs’ line of fire just as much as the Jews are, and if a nuke hits, it’s curtains for you, too. But then I’m sure you won’t mind too much since “martyrdom” has its rewards.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:13 | link | comments

Not betting on Bhutto: The New York Times, ever a sucker for a telegenic Muslim with a high-toned accent, even if she happens to be outrageously corrupt, opines that Benazir Bhutto raises distrust as well as hope. Mark Steyn, a man less predisposed to seeing the goodness in kleptocracy, appears to agree with the “distrust” part at least. From the Orange County Register:

…Gen. Musharraf is – as George S. Kaufman remarked when the Germans invaded Russia – shooting without a script. But that's because he presides over a country that defies the neatness of scripted narratives. In the days after 9/11, George W. Bush told the world that you're either with us or against us. Musharraf said he was with us, which was jolly decent of him considering that 99.9999 percent of his people are against us. In the teeth of that glum reality, he's rode a difficult tightrope with some skill.

As John Negroponte, U.S. deputy secretary of state, put it, aside from America "no country has done more in terms of inflicting damage and punishment on the Taliban and al-Qaida since 9/11" – which, given the proportion of the population that loathes America and actively supports the Taliban and al-Qaida, is not unimpressive.

Nevertheless, in Washington and the media, the assumption is that the wheel has now come off Musharraf's highwire act. Time for Pakistan to go back to democratically elected unicyclists, like the charming and glamorous Benazir Bhutto, who plays note-perfect in the salons of the West but degenerates into just another third-rate hack from one of the world's most corrupt political classes once she's back greasing the wheel in Pakistan itself.

Furthermore, confident believers in the usual dreary pendulum of Pakistani politics – corrupt democrats, followed by authoritarian generals, followed by corrupt democrats – overlook how profoundly the country's changed. Its political dynamic has a new player: Islamism. Miss Bhutto says, oh, don't worry about that, it's a lot of hooey cooked up by Musharraf to persuade Washington to prop him up for another half-decade…

It may well be that a Bhutto restoration will be the happy ending that foreign-policy "realists" predict. But it's more likely that a return to traditional levels of democratic corruption will cramp the economic interests of much of the military and lead key factions to make common cause with the Islamists – as Pakistan's intelligence service did with the Taliban. I don't know for sure, and nor does anyone else. But sometimes it helps to bet on form. And, given the past 60 years, the real question is how bad things will be after Musharraf. This thing can't be scripted, in Washington or anywhere else.

The Israel-Palestine thing can’t be scripted either, but that hasn’t stopped Washington from having a go at it—again and again and again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:55 | link | comments

"Freedom" of the press: To Western media, it means the freedom to freely report on actual events. To Arab/Palestinian media, it means the freedom to fabricate events—a la Muhammed al Dura—and pass them off as actual to gullible Westerners.

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

What gives?: He’s been completely cleared and well compensated for his pain and suffering. So why did a U.S. government lawyer insist in court that Maher Arar was a jihadist? From the National Post::

NEW YORK - There were gasps in a U.S. federal appeals court yesterday as a U.S. government lawyer spoke of Maher Arar's "unequivocal membership of al-Qaeda."

One of the three sitting judges echoed the reaction of many in the public gallery, declaring the statement stunned him, too.

Not only has a Canadian judicial inquiry cleared Mr. Arar of having any terrorism links, but Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, has admitted Washington did not handle his case properly.

"It was kind of a shocking statement with which to start," Judge Robert Sack told Dennis Barghaan, one of three federal attorneys opposing Mr. Arar's bid to see his lawsuit against the U.S. government reinstated.

Mr. Arar's lawyer, Maria La-hood, said outside the courtroom the judge's reaction boded well for his case.

"To me, it was a sign the judge knew this was an innocent man," she said.

The appeal comes after a U.S. federal judge threw out Mr. Arar's lawsuit in February, 2006, on the grounds that going ahead would require the release of sensitive information affecting national security…

Hmm. Very strange indeed. Wonder why there's no mention of the "gasps" in the Ceeb story.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:08 | link | comments

A marvelous night for a moonbat: The news that the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews will be feting Harry Belafonte has inspired this revision of his most famous song:

Wack-O,

Wa-a-ack-O,

Night time come, they give Harry a prize.

Wack, me say wack, me say wack

Me say wa-a-ack-O.

Night time come, they give Harry a prize.

 

He racist bat, he like Fidel Castro.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

He also like that nut Hugo.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

 

Come CCCJ, open up your eyes, now.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

Can’t you see he don’t deserve no prize, now.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

 

He Martin’s pal, work for civil rights.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

But it 40 years since he fight those fights.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

 

Wack, me say wa-a-ack-O.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

Wack, me say wa-a-ack-O.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

 

A curious bunch of clueless lefties.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

Their hearts so big but brains not so hefty.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

 

It twenty year, thirty year, forty year on.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

He resting on laurels that dead and gone.

(Night time come, they give Harry a prize.)

 

Wack-O,

Wa-a-ack-O,

Night time come, they give Harry a prize.

Wack, me say wack, me say wack

Me say wa-a-ack-O.

Night time come, they give Harry a prize…

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

Grilled Lamb: New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane skewers and bastes Hollywood’s latest anti-War on Terror clunker:

We were promised a spate of intelligent, probing films about America’s wars abroad, and about the implications for life back home, but results so far have been ragged. To be fair, directors face a heavy task. How can you explore the policy debate over Afghanistan, say, without having your movie sound like a policy debate? To judge by “Lions for Lambs,” the answer is: You can’t.

 

Robert Redford’s film, written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, is braided from three strands, like a rope. First, an eager young senator in Washington (Tom Cruise) reveals a new military initiative to a skeptical reporter (Meryl Streep). Second, we watch that initiative in practice, as a pair of front-line troops (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are left wounded on an Afghan mountain in the snow, with the Taliban closing in. Third, we listen to a professor (Robert Redford) who taught the two soldiers at college, where they were close friends, while he tells a fun-loving student (Andrew Garfield) to get off his backside and engage with the world.

 

The three stories are intercut through-out the film, to lend it at least the illusion of momentum. Sadly, unless you are Jean-Luc Godard, the sight of your characters discussing the political ethics of their own actions is unlikely to ravish the eye, and “Lions for Lambs” is most charitably described as Ibsen with helicopters. It winces with liberal self-chastisement: Redford is surely smart enough to realize, as the professor turns his ire on those who merely chatter while Rome burns, that his movie is itself no better, or more morally effective, than high-concept Hollywood fiddling. He may even spare a smile for the harshest irony of all: the one scorching performance here, cheerfully laying waste to the niggles of the peacemakers, is that of Tom Cruise, who does for Republican warmongering what he did for the rampant libido in “Magnolia.” In person, he is reportedly a Democrat, but the G.O.P. should poach him anyway; why settle for crusty old Fred Thompson when you could have young Top Gun himself?

 

As if the GOP doesn’t have enough problems, it certainly wouldn’t get any further ahead by hitching its fortunes to a creepy shill for Sci-Fi-enentology. But since Lane, one of the few movie critics I enjoy reading on a regular basis (because he writes things like “Ibsen with helicopters”—good one), is of the leftish persuasion, I guess that’s the idea.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:45 | link | comments (2)

Two of a kind: Raymond Ibrahim, who edited The Al Qaeda Reader (a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the jihadi mindset), notes some points of comparison between that book and an earlier work outlining an ambitious loser’s “struggle” and plans for global control. From FrontPage Magazine:

(H)ow is The Al Qaeda Reader similar to Mein Kampf? A single sentence from the introduction of the 1999 edition of Mein Kampf, published by Mariner Books, goes a long way in answering this question: “He [Hitler] had made his ultimate goals clear in Mein Kampf as early as 1926: rearmament, the abolition of democracy, territorial expansion, eugenics, the ‘elimination’ of the ‘Jewish threat’” (Mein Kampf, xv).

The Al Qaeda Reader dwells on, if not obsesses over, four of these same five “ultimate goals” of Hitler—everything but eugenics, which is a temporal byproduct of 19^th century pseudo-scientific racial theories. But al-Qaeda’s writings certainly dwell on dealing with the “Jewish threat,” overthrowing the “pagan religion” of democracy, both territorial re-conquests (from Palestine to Andalusia) and territorial expansion (to the whole world), as well as rearmament. Even more telling, the “fascistic” tone of Mein Kampf—ridicule and contempt for modernity and peace, praise for heroism and martyrdom, condemnation of promiscuity and lax mores—saturates The Al Qaeda Reader. Indeed, that there are many similarities is best represented by the fact that the German words “mein kampf” translate to “jihad-i”—or, “my jihad”—in Arabic.

The introduction continues: “Mein Kampf may have been dismissed by the West when it was first published—it is largely a theoretical text, lacking an identifiable program for accomplishing the goals it describes—but here Hitler was taking concrete steps to realize his vision. Yet nothing was done” (Mein Kampf, xv). This is ominously reminiscent of Aslan’s dismissive critique of the statements and writings of al-Qaeda, where he questions “whether a hodgepodge of interviews, declarations, and exegetical arguments can be read as a sort of jihadist manifesto,” and that “there is in these writings an almost total lack of interest in providing any specific solution or policy.” So too was the weltanschauung of Mein Kampf dismissed as absurd and impractical (or, more euphemistically, as a “theoretical text, lacking an identifiable program for accomplishing the goals it describes”). Yet who can doubt its subsequent, and most horrific, influence? In like manner, jihadists the world over are taking steps to realize their vision—murky as it may be, bloody as it certainly will be, should it ever come to fruition.

----------------------------------

What follows are similar quotes and excerpts from Mein Kampf (MK) and The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), arranged thematically in order to illustrate the many parallels between both books. I have taken the liberty of italicizing key words and adding clarifications in brackets to better highlight the similarities.

“The Jew”

It is almost pointless quoting hostile excerpts from either book directed against the Jews, since practically every other—or, in some sections, every—page of both books makes some sort of anti-Semitic remark, ranging from the hackneyed to the genocidal. The word “Jew” (and other variants) occurs separately in both The Al Qaeda Reader and Mein Kampf some 250 times. Witness, however, the similar treatment of the Jewish people in the following small sampling from both books:

MK: “Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord,” p. 65.

AQR: “You should know that seeking to kill Americans and Jews everywhere in the world is one of the greatest duties [for Muslims], and the good deed most preferred by Allah, the Exalted,” p.270.

MK: “People who can sneak their way into the rest of mankind like drones, to make other men work for them under all sorts of pretexts, can form states even without any definitely delimited living space of their own. This applies first and foremost to a people under who parasitism the whole of honest humanity is suffering, today more than ever: the Jews,” p. 150. “He [“the Jew”] begins to lend money and as always at usurious interest…. He regards commerce as well as all financial transactions as his own special privilege which he ruthlessly exploits,” p.309 “From the publisher down [i.e., the media world], they were all Jews,” p.61.

AQR: “You [America] are a nation that permits usury, though it has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, thereby taking control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life, making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense—precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against,” p.203.

MK: “When over long periods of human history I scrutinized the activity of the Jewish people, suddenly there rose up in me the fearful question whether inscrutable Destiny, perhaps for reasons unknown to us poor mortals, did not with eternal and immutable resolve, desire the final victory of this little nation [“Jewry”]. Was it possible that the earth had been promised as a reward to this people which lives only for this earth?” p.64.

AQR: “Come let me [bin Laden] tell you who the Jews are. The Jews have lied about the Creator, and even more so about His creations. The Jews are the murderers of the prophets, the violators of agreements…. These are the Jews: usurers and whoremongers. They will leave you nothing, neither this world nor religion.... Such are the Jews who, in accordance with their religion, believe that human beings are their slaves and that those who refuse [to recognize this] should be put to death,” p.277.

Democracy

Hitler constantly criticized (and, when he came into power, finally abolished) democracy as totally contrary to Nature. So too with al-Qaeda leaders. In fact, while democracy is berated in a sporadic fashion throughout The Al Qaeda Reader, a more formal treatise, written by Ayman Zawahiri and devoted to showing how democracy is antithetical to Islam, is also included. Another interesting parallel is how both Hitler and al-Qaeda leaders portray democracy as a tool of Zionists, or, “international Jewry.”

MK: “A wild gesticulating mass [parliament] screaming all at once in every different key…. I couldn’t help laughing,” p.77.

AQR: “Is there any greater mockery than withholding sharia, or superimposing another [law] over it, or putting together a piece of paper and presenting it to the so-called ‘people’s council’—whoever agrees agrees, whoever disagrees disagrees—deeming this the only way to govern?” p.123.

MK: “And that is why this type of democracy has become the instrument of that race which in its inner goals must shun the light of day, now and in all ages of the future. Only the Jew can praise an institution [democracy] which is as dirty and false as he himself,” p.91.

AQR: “You [Americans] elect the wicked from among you, the greatest liars and most depraved, and you are enslaved to the wealthiest and most influential [among you], especially the Jews—who direct you through the lie of ‘democracy,’” p.210.

MK: “By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…” p.81.

AQR: “Know that democracy, that is, ‘rule of the people,’ is a new religion that deifies the masses by giving them the right to legislate without being shackled down to any other authority…. [D]emocracy is a man-made infidel religion, devised to give the right to legislate to the masses—as opposed to Islam, where all legislative rights belong to Allah Most High: He has no partners,” p.130.

Expansionism

While Hitler complained about trying to reunite former German lands to reclaim the (nebulous) borders of ancient Germania, in Mein Kampf he occasionally let slip his true sentiments of world conquest. The same is true with al-Qaeda: while constantly bemoaning the lot of Palestine—as well as Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia et al—in their writings that were never meant to be read by non-Muslims, they make clear that, with time and strength, they mean to conquer the world in the name of Islam. In fact, the fundamental difference between both sets of writings is that al-Qaeda’s worldview is much more assertive and wholly void of subtleties.

MK: “For as matters stand there are at the present time on this earth immense areas of unused soil, only waiting for the men to till them. But it is equally true that Nature as such has not reserved this soil for the future possession of any particular nation or race; on the contrary, this soil exists for the people which possesses the force to take it and industry to cultivate it,” p.134

AQR: “In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam,” p. 51.

MK: “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherlands, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe [i.e., lordship of the world],” p. 214.

AQR: “Warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihad in the path of Allah: Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its own land, and then spreading it around the world,” p.113.

MK: “If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation,” p.140.

AQR: “Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live,” p.42.

MK: “If our forefathers had let their decisions depend on the same pacifistic nonsense as our contemporaries, we should possess only a third of our present territory,” p.139.

AQR: “What did the Prophet, the Companions after him, and the righteous forefathers do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover ‘shared understandings’ between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread [i.e., Hitler’s “pacifistic nonsense”]—in such a satanic manner as this?” p.31.

Heroism, Self-Sacrifice, and Warrior-Pride:

Talk of the heroic, martyr-seeking warrior, as well as the real or mythical Teutonic and Islamic “golden eras,” meant to inspire, saturate the writings of Hitler and al-Qaeda.

MK: “If the struggle for a philosophy [or religion] is not led by heroes prepared to make sacrifices, there will, in a short time, cease to be any warriors willing to die,” p.105.

AQR: “[Muhammad said:] In order that the people [Muslims] have a livelihood, it is best that they have a man who holds on to the reigns of his horse [i.e., a “hero” or “warrior”], battling in the way of Allah. He flies upon [his horse’s] back every time he hears the call or alarm, wishing for death or expecting to be slain,” p.146.

MK: “As soon as the Pan-German movement [compare to “Islamist movements”] sold its soul to parliament, it attracted “parliamentarians” instead of leaders and fighters. Thus it sank to the level of the ordinary political parties of the day and lost the strength to oppose catastrophic destiny with the defiance of martyrdom. Instead of fighting, it now learned to make speeches and ‘negotiate,” p.105.

AQR: “Not only have the [Muslim] Brothers [the “godfather” of all Islamist movements] been idle from fulfilling their duty of [waging] jihad, but they have gone as far as to describe the infidel governments as legitimate, and have joined ranks with them them in the[ir] jahilliya [pagan style of] governing, that is, democracies, elections, and parliaments. Moreover, they take advantage of the Muslim youths’ fervor by bringing them into their fold only to store them in a refrigerator. Then, they steer their onetime passionate Islamic zeal for jihad against tyranny toward conferences and elections,” p.116.

MK: No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the severest struggles [literally, a “jihad”] for the existence of mankind. In the end, only the urge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it, so-called humanity, the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all conceit, will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great in struggle [jihad], and only in eternal peace does it perish,” p.135.

AQR: “[Muhammad said:] Because you have forsaken jihad, taking hold of cows’ tails and dealing in merchandise, Allah has adorned you with shame and you will never be able to shake it off yourselves until you repent to Allah and return to your original positions [as jihadists],” p.162…

There should be little doubt at this point of how similar the worldview delineated in The Al Qaeda Reader is to that of Mein Kampf’s: Jews, democracy, peace, modernity and decadence, and the notion of a peaceful “United Nations” are anathema to both. Conversely, authoritarianism, self-sacrificing heroism and martyrdom, military pride and prowess, and, above all, a zeal for world conquest—rationalized for both as a “divine mission”— are idealized…

That said, the two books still do differ, in certain respects. For starters, only one man—Hitler—authored Mein Kampf, whereas two authored The Al Qaeda Reader (bin Laden and Zawahiri). Furthermore, Mein Kampf is a complete text, whereas I played the role of editor for The Al Qaeda Reader, selecting which texts to include and how to organize them at my own discretion.

The most obvious difference, of course, is the ultimate goal of both books—Aryan supremacy for Mein Kampf, Islamic supremacy for The Al Qaeda Reader, the one a secular, the other a religious, enterprise. Still, all the key words and ideologies present in Mein Kampf have their natural counterparts in The Al Qaeda Reader. In other words, both books present a similar paradigm. Hitler’s “Nature” and “Destiny” is appealed to in the same fashion that al-Qaeda invokes “Allah.” Even Hitler’s social Darwinism, evinced by his tenacious acceptance of the “survival of the fittest” thesis finds its corollary in al-Qaeda’s insistence that jihad is what “enlivens” Muslims: “The Koran declares: ‘O you who have believed! Respond to Allah and the Messenger when he calls you to that [jihad] which will give you life’ [8:24]. And a faction of the original forefathers asserted: ‘Jihad is what enlivens you.’ And the saying of the Prophet: ‘No nation ever forsook jihad without becoming degraded’” (The Al Qaeda Reader, 59).

Moreover, Hitler’s harangue about and to “the people” or “the race”—or simply, the volk—is conceptually no different than al-Qaeda’s harangue about and to “the believers,” that is, Muslims: both are presented as the ideal of humanity, destined by Nature or Allah to rule the world. Hitler’s treatment of the “fatherland” is identical to al-Qaeda’s treatment of the “umma”: both must become liberated and independent, and then expand.

Another difference between the two books is the fact that al-Qaeda’s tone is actually much more brutal and direct than Hitler’s. One can almost sense the “romantic” in Mein Kampf—a deluded Goethe lamenting the mediocrity of a world that shuns his greatness. Expansion is rationalized only in order to “till the earth” and earn the people’s “daily bread.” In contrast, al-Qaeda unequivocally declares its intentions to kill infidels, kill Americans, and kill Jews anywhere and everywhere, until the earth and all its inhabitants submit to Islam. This contrast is underpinned by the fact that Mein Kampf was written in the first person and revolves around Hitler’s personal life. Not so with The Al Qaeda Reader; though delineated by two men, the worldview presented therein is hardly influenced by their personal experiences.

Which leads to the most fundamental, albeit subtle, difference between Mein Kampf and The Al Qaeda Reader: the words contained in Mein Kampf belong to one man, Hitler, who was a byproduct of a particular age and temporal worldview. In contrast, perhaps as much as half of The Al Qaeda Reader’s words are quotations from 1) the Koran, 2) Muhammad (i.e., hadith), and 3) authoritative Islamic theologians—in other words, half of the statements of The Al Qaeda Reader do not originate with al-Qaeda at all, but rather find their origin in Islam itself...

So much for the theory that they’ve “twisted” the text.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:52 | link | comments

Oslo folly: Speaking of historical ignorance (see post two below), as well as ignorance of historical proportions, I give you John McKay. McKay is the Liberal MP who, along with a few other politicians, got in all sorts of heck for attending a vigil for a dead Tamil Tiger, a man whose organization features prominently on Canada’s list of outlawed terrorist groups. McKay has been in major damage control ever since. To help explain his baffling conduct, which to all outward appearances seems to have been little more than a blatant bid to curry favour with Tamil voters, he has wrapped himself in a protective cloak of righteous indignation, and is citing the historical precedent  of the Oslo Accords, which he misperceives as having been a positive turn of events. Here’s McKay’s letter in the Globe; he also has a longer version of the same mishegas in the Post:

Your editorial What Were Those MPs Thinking? (Nov. 7) overlooks the central point of the Markham vigil for S.P. Thamilselvan: His death was the result of an assassination attempt by Sri Lanka's government.

The Oslo peace accord negotiations are instructive here. As repugnant as Yasser Arafat was to the Israelis, they knew the only possibility of ending the conflict was through negotiation, and that Mr. Arafat, for better or worse, was the recognized leader of the Palestinians.

Regrettably, the Sri Lankan government hasn't taken this approach.

Despite its opinion of Mr. Thamilselvan, he was the chief negotiator for one side in this conflict at the Norwegian-mediated peace process. His assassination sends the signal that the Sri Lankan government has chosen a military solution when none exists. The most likely outcome of his assassination will be a further escalation of violence and the end to the peace process in Sri Lanka.

My attendance at the vigil was intended to urge Canadians on both sides of this conflict to press for a resumption of peace talks. To do this, one cannot take sides.

I conclude by turning the question around: Why didn't you condemn Mr. Thamilselvan's assassination and its inevitable disastrous consequences? Where is your thundering editorial condemning state-sanctioned assassinations of peace negotiators?

What were you thinking?

Well, John, I don’t know what the Globe editorial writer was thinking, but I’m thinking you should probably go back and read up on Oslo. The Israelis you praise were delusional—wishful thinkers who made the critical error of believing that a terrorist, an Islamic supremacist, would be willing to settle for slice of “Palestine” instead of the whole enchilada. Their actions had horrific consequences, resulting in a second intifada and putting Israel’s very existence in grave peril.

The real lesson of Oslo, Mr. McKay, is that you cannot—you must not— negotiate with an Arafat. Obviously, it is a lesson that you (and, alas, far too many others) have failed to learn.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:12 | link | comments

I am woman, hear me ‘splode: Women’s Lib al-Qaeda-style  means chicks still have to submit to Allah and their menfolk as per the stringent terms of sharia, but they have the “freedom” to plot jihad terror acts over the Internet, and maybe even self-detonate in a crowd of infidels. By Stewart Bell in the National Post:

TORONTO - Women will play an increasing role in al-Qaeda terrorism, predicts a newly released Canadian intelligence report obtained by the National Post.

While women have been active in a variety of terrorist groups since at least the 1960s, conservative religious values had kept them on the sidelines of al-Qaeda. But the report says that is changing.

"Female jihadists" have appeared in Iraq and the trend toward greater involvement of women in radical Islamist terror operations may increase, partly because of the Internet, it says.

An increasing number of jihadist Internet sites are now targeted at mujahidaat, or female "holy warriors," the report adds. They focus on training, although many relate to non-combat roles for women.

"The growth of the Internet has been a boon for Muslim women, especially in restrictive societies where men and women are segregated," it says.

"The Internet allows these women a great deal of freedom. It gives them the ability to communicate with other women, but also Muslim men.

"Via the Internet, they can initiate contact, develop relationships and perhaps even aspire to full membership in terrorist organizations."

The report by the federal government's Integrated Threat Assessment Centre cites several examples that suggest women are becoming more active in terrorism in the Islamic world but also in Western countries.

"Women have had the advantage of greater mobility and have traditionally been used for reconnaissance missions, as facilitators, as couriers and even as bombers. Women have also assumed leadership roles in groups," it says…

Also, they get to wear those head-to-toe disguises in which they can hide an explosive device.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

A (w)hole lot of nothing: One of the rotten fruits of multifrikkinculturalism, the social doctrine which sees Canada as an empty shell to be filled up by groups that have an actual identity, is the ignorance of Canadian history it breeds. Why bother to teach Canadian youngsters Canadian history when, after all, the past is a different, non-multicultural country?  As far as the nation's elites are concerned, history began with Pierre E. Trudeau, the Patriarch of Canadian multiculturalism, the Moses who came down from the mountain with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms etched in stone. As a result, Canadian kids can't help but be woefully ignorant about Canadian history and, vicious circle, it’s all but impossible to build social cohesion when at the centre of your national consciousness is a big fat whole. The Globe and Mail has the sorry details of how the school system is failing to inculcate the least semblance of historical knowledge and national pride in Canadian kids:

TORONTO -- Fewer than half of young Canadians can name the country's first prime minister and only one in four know the date of Confederation, according to a study to be released today.

Despite efforts to educate young people about Canadian history, the Dominion Institute report found that little has changed since 1997, the last time the survey was conducted - prompting the organization to call on provinces to organize a national citizenship exam that would be a requirement for high-school graduation.

"We've not done as much as we might have hoped in terms of turning around Canadians' generally poor knowledge of their country's history," said Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the institute.

"Politicians have to go beyond the obligatory speeches each Canada Day and Remembrance Day and actually put some of the machinery of government behind this problem and treat it just like any other challenge that we face as a country."

The national survey of 18- to 24-year-olds shows that only 46 per cent of respondents knew Sir John A. Macdonald was the first prime minister, down eight percentage points from a decade ago. And 38 per cent knew that Newfoundland was the last province to join Confederation, compared with 51 per cent in 1997.

But knowledge of military history appears to have increased: 37 per cent knew that Nov. 11 marks the end of the First World War, compared with 33 per cent who knew this fact 10 years ago.

In the study, 1,004 young people were asked 30 basic questions about Canada's past.

The respondents were also asked whether they support the recommendation that students should be required to take the citizenship exam given to newcomers. Seven in 10 agreed.

Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec require high-school students to take a dedicated Canadian history course to graduate. The vast majority of respondents believe this should be mandatory in every province.

Mr. Griffiths said he has seen a decline in the amount of Canadian history being taught in schools. Ottawa lacks the tools and the will to take on this issue, he said, because it fears stepping on provincial toes.

"Both the major levels of government in our country, provincial and federal, have done little of any substance to tackle this issue in the last 10 years," he said.

But Ken Osborne, professor emeritus of education at the University of Manitoba, who taught high-school history in the 1960s and 1970s, said schools have started to seep Canadian history into parts of the curriculum. Graduates, however, tend to forget some of what they learn.

"Whatever the schools do or don't do, there's very little in everyday Canadian life that refers to or resonates with Canada's history," Prof. Osborne said. "You've only got to be in the United States for a day and a half to find all kinds of historical references leaping out at you."…

Looking on the bright side, at least we’re united by those two coast-to-coast icons, Tim Horton’s (even though it’s foreign-owned) and the CBC—although I’ve often thought we’d be better off if Timmy’s was handed the license for public broadcasting and the Ceeb started making donuts. In the event, the donut—fried, empty calories surrounding a whole lot of nothing—makes a fitting symbol of our national identity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:07 | link | comments

Batty Belafonte gets a prize: Harry Belafonte, a flagrant racist who once opined that George W. Bush is "the world’s greatest terrorist” and that “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich” is being given a “special award for his contribution to the advancement of Human Rights and Dignities” by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. From Canoe:

TORONTO - American singer and activist Harry Belafonte will be honoured by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews at its 60th anniversary gala later this month.

The council's Canadian Centre for Diversity will present Belafonte with its International Diversity Award at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto on Nov. 22, organizers announced Thursday.

Belafonte, 80, "is being celebrated for his contribution to the advancement of human rights and dignities," said a release.

The prominent Asper and Lakhani families will also receive a Human Relations Award "for their enormous contribution to the fabric of Canadian culture and society," said the group.

Belafonte, also called the "King of Calypso" music, has won several Grammy Awards and is perhaps best known for singing the "Banana Boat Song" with the familiar refrain "Day-O."

He's also an Emmy and Tony-winning actor and longtime civil and human rights activist who was once a close friend to the late Martin Luther King Jr.

The Asper family of Manitoba owns multimedia giant CanWest Global Communications and has, through its Asper Foundation, developed social programs and made considerable donations to various charities.

The Lakhani family, led by philanthropist Hassanali Lakhani, has supported the Toronto Islamic community through its Noor Cultural Centre, founded in 2001.

The Canadian Council of Christians and Jews is a national organization that aims to eradicate discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. Its Canadian Centre for Diversity develops school-based programs against discrimination and misunderstanding.

Are these people out of their flipping minds?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:01 | link | comments

Rosie O'Ashkenaz: In one of her semi-literate blog “poems,” Rosie O’Donnell, a devotee of Kabbalah, uses a Yiddish word to account for the reason her MSNBC deal fell through:

msnbc
one hour
live
following keith olbermann

we were close to a deal
almost done
i let it slip in miami
causing panic on the studio end

well
what can u do

2day there is no deal
poof
my career as a pundit is over
b4 it began

just as well
i figure
everything happens for a reason
bashert - as we say

and on we go

I don’t know if it was “bashert” or not, but it’s great that Rosie opened her big mouth and scotched the deal because it means she won’t be able hock mir kayn chaynik on daily TV.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:36 | link | comments

The point of taking credit for everything: Columbia U professor George Saliba is on a tear, trying to bamboozle guilt-ridden and easily-gulled infidels into believing they owe a tremendous debt to Islam since it’s given the world so much. Jihad Watch’s Hugh Fitzgerald explains what’s behind Saliba’s propaganda:

For 1350 years they have been rewriting history. The zero is in their retelling an Arab invention, as is algebra (the Arabic name apparently is enough to dismiss everything taken from the Sanskirt mathematicians). Like Soviet propagandists on steroids, they claim for "Islam" and "Islamic science" Greek texts translated and preserved, by Jews and Christians in the schools of translators at Cordoba and Baghdad. They claim not only the Hindu "zero" but paper-making, brought (see Dard Hunter) from China to Damascus. They insist that in the first 200-300 years of Muslim conquest, when the Christians and Jews still outnumbered the Muslims who ruled over them, that the intellectual activities of those Jews and Christians, or of those who were one or at most two generations from being Jews and Christians, and were raised in a milieu not yet stifled by Islam, and its hatred of free inquiry, are attirbutable to "Islam" and claimed for "Islamic civilization." And the most famous Muslim scientist, Rhazes (al-Razi) was a freethinker, as were many of the dozen or two Muslim names -- always the same names, but we in the West are kept constantly confused by those same names, with Ibn Rushd (or is it Averroes?) and Avicenna (or is it Ibn Sina) or is Ibn Sina Ibn Rushd, or what the hell is going on, so in place of the thousands of names of writers, sculptors, painters, musicians, philosophers, thinkers in the non-Muslim West, we keep getting handed the same pitiful list, of the same people, and we keep being impressed as Muslims and their ahistoric apologists tell us over and over again such fables as "when the West was in the Dark Ages [a phrase, and idea, put paid to by the past half-century of Western historiography] Islamic science was flourishing."

Was it just a year or two ago that the State Department, in an excess of desire to please, agreed with the preposterous Muslim claim that Muslims had been with Columbus when he discovered America? And of course we have also heard the Muslim claim that Muslims discovered America not with Columbus, but before 900 A.D., and not only discovered America but settled here. Anything will be said, or claimed -- just as Muslims are given to embracing the wildest conspiracy theories about Infidels, they are also given to the wildest fantasies about their own achievements, because the habit of mental submission, the habit of discouraging all skeptical and critical and free inquiry, has its consequences, and the most obvious consequence is the primitive mental conditioning that makes people susceptible to those conspiracy theories, and those baseless dreams of glory.

The Muslim claim to have "discovered" America in 880 A.D., or that Muslims were with Columbus [who had a great interest in claiming the New World for Christian Spain, and was keenly aware of the menace of Islam to Western Christendom], or the still-more recent Muslim claim that long before the Europeans arrived, Muslims had arrived in and settled in Australia are all part of the same Muslim impulse to stake a claim to the world. In Muslim terms, for Muslims only, the claim may not be necessary. After all, in the Muslim view everyone was born a Muslim, so why isn't that enough to make the Muslim claim? But of course they have taken note of Infidels, who apparently are not impressed with this everyone-is-born-a-Muslim argument (which is why people are said not to "convert" but rather to "revert" to Islam) , need a little something more for them to accept Muslim claims, whether to land or to cultural achievements, that are not their own.

And these are not the simple claims of simple folk who simply derive pleasure from some achievement of others like them, the way someone might keep track of famous sports stars or entertainers or scientists or political leaders sharing the same ethnic or racial or religious background. Not at all. These are claims made by Muslims with a more sinister intent: to make sure that the Infidels understand that Muslims have a claim, a claim on territory, a claim that is somehow validated by the backdating of a Muslim presence, or the exaggeration of Muslim efforts.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:01 | link | comments

Wahhabi speaks with forked tongue; dhimmis grovel: During his state visit to the U.K., the oily Wahhabi royal whose regime is busily promoting Islamic supremacism throughout the world, has called on British Muslims to “be upright Muslims and good citizens.”

‘Course, his idea of what constitutes good citizenship might be somewhat different from what his hosts think of as good citizenship. From the Muslim Weekly:

The Saudi King has called upon British Muslims to be model citizens by presenting the correct Islamic character in order to convey a true image of the principles of Islam, during his state visit to Britain this week.

"I should like to take this opportunity to call upon our Muslim brethren living in Britain to be honest and upright Muslims and worthy British citizens, striving to build and construct so that they may convey the true image of the principles of Islam - those eternal principles of love, mercy and moderation," said the custodian of the two holy mosques King Abdullah.

The Saudi monarch was given a lavish red-carpeted reception despite critics pointing to Saudi Arabia’s alleged abuse of human rights as an objection to the invitation.

But during a state banquet hosted by the Queen, the sharp-minded 83-year-old King spoke of the "ominous signs of war and conflict in the world".

He repeated the position of Saudi’s scholastic elite and called for the complete rejection of extremism.

"Throughout the world today there are ominous signs of war and conflict, and in the face of these threatening dangers it is essential that we equip ourselves with wisdom and courage so that we may not slip into the abyss," he said.

Earlier the Queen emphasised the need for both nations in continuing to "work together against the terrorists who threaten the way of life of our citizens in both countries".

She said: "We have watched with great interest your work to lead the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia forward, whilst respecting its traditions and deeply held beliefs.

"We have appreciated and admired Saudi Arabia’s role in the search for a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular Your Majesty’s own personal contribution through the Arab Peace Initiative. We will continue to support your efforts in the cause of peace in the region. The relationship between our Two Kingdoms is one of mutual benefit, learning and understanding."

The King echoed the Queen’s admiration for peace in the region by stating that he was certain the government would try to help end "the tragic ordeal of our Palestinian brethren".

Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, praised the King’s call and reportedly said: "Saudi Arabia, like Britain, has experienced terrorism in recent years, and we both have an interest in tackling it."

On Monday Foreign Office minister Kim Howells called for both countries to work more closely together, despite their differences.

He said the two states could unite around their "shared values"...

The “shared values” he’s referring to: a mutual loathing of that stiff-necked Jewish state, and a commitment to British dhimmitude.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:37 | link | comments

Zamzamapalooza: Great news for all those planning to do the Haj this year—the Wahhabi Zamzam Office is on top of things and every single pilgrim is going to get his/her fair share of genuine liquid Zamzam. (In the past there's been a problem with people trying to fob off phony Zamzam as the real thing.) From Arab News:

MAKKAH, 8 November 2007 — The Zamzam Office in Makkah has outlined a new distribution plan for the upcoming Haj season, which will see pilgrims being handed gifts of 300ml bottles of the holy water on the first day of Dhul Qidah, said Sulaiman Abu Gaila, deputy chairman of the Zamzam Office’s board of directors.

“There are six groups of workers that have been divided to work two shifts to distribute the Zamzam bottles. Each group has to cover two districts of Makkah,” said Abu Gaila, adding that beginning on Dhul Qidah 14, some 70,000 cans containing 20 liters of Zamzam would be handed to pilgrims in their apartments in different parts of Makkah.

“This would continue until Dhul Hijja 7. At the end of the Haj, pilgrims would be handed free one-liter bottles of Zamzam,” he added.

“The office will be distributing Zamzam to more than 6,000 buildings around Makkah. Although some of these buildings are located on top of mountains and in spite of it being tiring to reach such areas, we hope to use different vehicles to provide pilgrims with Zamzam water,” he said.

The Zamzam Office this year is also going to use three Zamzam containers — made from materials that do not rust — to transfer Zamzam from Shaib Kudai to the Rusaifa filling station.

“They meet health and safety standards and can each carry 127 tons of water. We’ve also repaired the old Zamzam line and have laid a new line in case of emergencies. These two lines have a combined capacity of filling up as many as 3,400 twenty-liter bottles in one hour,” Abu Gaila said.

According to Abu Gaila, there are several stages that Zamzam has to go through from the moment it is brought from Shaib Kudai and then filled into tanks in the Al-Rusaifa district. “After this the water is filtered in a number of ways, sterilized, bottled and then labeled,” he said.

The project is providing more than a thousand jobs to local youths. Workers are needed to distribute Zamzam among pilgrims, who live in thousands of buildings around the holy city.

“The project not only benefits pilgrims but also our local youths,” said Abu Gaila, highlighting how the Zamzam Office is working toward generating jobs for unemployed Saudis.

Holy Perrier, Batman, I gotta get me some of that Zamzam.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:04 | link | comments

What Churchill knew: He knew that, for the sake of civilization, it’s good to have the Jews—and a Jewish state—around. By Arthur Herman in OpinionJournal:

…A student of history, Churchill came to feel that Judaism was the bedrock of traditional Western moral and political principles--and Churchill was of a generation that preferred to talk about principles instead of "values." For Europeans to turn against the Jew, he argued, was for them to strike at their own roots and reject an essential part of their civilization--"that corporate strength, that personal and special driving power" that Jews had brought for hundreds of years to Europe's arts, sciences and institutions.

 

To deny Jews a national homeland was therefore an act of ingratitude. Churchill became a keen backer of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which broached the idea of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. As a friend to Zionist leader Chaim Weizman, and as colonial secretary after World War I, Churchill made establishing such a homeland a matter of urgency. "The hope of your race for so many centuries will be gradually realized here," Churchill told a Jewish audience in Jerusalem during his visit in March 1921, "not only for your own good, but for the good of all the world."

By "all the world" Churchill most pointedly meant to include Palestine's Arabs. As Mr. Gilbert recounts, Churchill was dismayed and disgusted by Arab resistance to Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine. "The Jews have a far more difficult task than you," he told Arab representatives, since "you only have to enjoy your own possessions," while the Jewish emigrants from Europe and elsewhere would have to carve a society out of a barren wilderness.

Yet Churchill was convinced that Arab civilization would benefit from contact with an entrepreneurial and morally centered people. "Speaking entirely as a non-Jew," he wrote, "I look on the Jews as the natural importers of western leaven so necessary for countries in the Near East." At the same time, Churchill tried to ensure that Palestinian Arabs got their own national homeland. It was Churchill who, as colonial secretary, decided to separate Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) from the rest of Palestine, assuming that Transjordan would become the site of the Arabs' future state and that other parts of Palestine (including the West Bank of the Jordan River) would be open to Jewish settlement.

Churchill was to be disappointed by the results of his Middle Eastern efforts, as Arabs hunted down and murdered Jewish settlers by the hundreds in the 1920s and 1930s--just at the time when Adolf Hitler was building his own regime around the persecution of the Jews in Germany. As early as 1930 Churchill realized that the Nazis' anti-Jewish policies carried the stench of an ancient evil. "Tell your boss from me," he said to a Hitler acquaintance in the late summer of 1932, as the Nazi Party was on the verge of power, "that anti-Semitism may be a good starter but it is a bad finisher."

In December 1942, Churchill--now prime minister--learned from a Roman Catholic member of the Polish resistance, a man named Jan Karsky, that thousands of Jews were being rounded up and sent by cattle cars to what turned out to be the death camp at Belzec, in eastern Poland. Churchill used the Karsky report to compel the Allies, including the Russians, to condemn "a bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination" in Germany--although he understood that the best way to halt the slaughter would be the speedy destruction of Hitler's empire. The chief of Britain's air staff, Sir Charles Portal, warned that any air raids "avowedly conducted on account of the Jews would be an asset to enemy propaganda," and Churchill reluctantly bowed to his advice. Nonetheless, in 1943 he wanted a film that documented the atrocities committed against the Jews to be shown to every American serviceman before the invasion of Europe.

After the war, Churchill felt that the most fitting response to the Holocaust would be to punish those guilty of the most horrific crimes against the Jews and to fulfill the promise of a Jewish homeland that he and Britain had made almost 30 years earlier. When Ernest Bevin, Britain's Labour Party foreign minister, hesitated to recognize Israel nine months after its founding, for fear of inflaming Arab opinion, Churchill swung back hard: "Whether the Right Honorable Gentleman likes it or not, the coming into being of a Jewish State in Palestine is an event in world history to be viewed in the perspective, not of a generation or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thousand, or even three thousand years." Israel was just recompense, Churchill felt, not only for what the Jews of Europe had lost but for what they had given to civilization over the centuries.

 

This view, of course, no longer prevails. Today the existence of Israel is apparently something to be regretted, even deplored, not only in Arab capitals but in European ones and on American university campuses. Paradoxically, such feelings intensified after 9/11, an event that should have made us all aware of who the friends of Western civilization really are--and who its enemies. Martin Gilbert's book [Churchill and the Jews] reminds us that anti-Semitism is the dark turn of the modern mind against itself, and a form of cultural patricide.

In other words, get rid of the coal mine’s canary, and the whole mine’s a goner.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:24 | link | comments

Liar, liar, nukes on fire: Tiny Hitler spouts the usual tententious taqiyyah about Iran's peaceful intentions.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:11 | link | comments

Centrifugal force: According to experts, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s announcement yesterday that Iran has 3,000 up and running could mean the mullocracy is as little as a year away from completing a nuke. Not surprisingly, the Jews are disinclined to sit back and let the mullahs and Hiroshima-ize them—a fact the U.S. is quick to point out (because it wants the Jews to do the dirty work, like they did in Iraq and Syria?). From the times online:

A claim by President Ahmadinejad that Iran has 3,000 working uranium-enriching centrifuges sent a tremor across the world yesterday amid fears that Israel would respond by bombing the country’s nuclear facilities.

Military sources in Washington said that the existence of such a large number could be a “tipping point”, triggering an Israeli air strike. The Pentagon is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that Israel is a “different matter”. Amid the international uproar, British MPs who were to have toured the nuclear facility were backing out of their Iran trip.

Even before President Ahmadinejad’s announcement, a US defence official told The Times yesterday: “Israel could do something when they get to around 3,000 working centrifuges. The Pentagon is minded to wait a little longer.” US experts say 3,000 machines running for long periods could make enough enriched uranium for an atomic bomb within a year.

Israel responded by serving notice that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. “Talks never did, and never will, stop rockets,” said Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister, after talks with the security cabinet.

The US and Western allies believe that Iran is using its civilian nuclear programme as a cover for weapon development. Tehran says that it merely wants to generate electricity.

Concern about Israel’s intentions has been heightened by its recent air strike on a suspected nuclear plant in Syria. In 1981 Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi nuclear reactor, and as the sole — if undeclared — nuclear power in the region, it now considers Iran the most serious threat to its security. Mr Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

Efraim Inbar, of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, said that the figure of 3,000 centrifuges would signal the ability of Israel’s arch-foe to produce the nuclear material needed for a warhead. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we do something if the international community leaves us alone,” he said. “I think we [Israel] are preparing for it. For Israel this is a critical technological moment.”…

Also a critical existential moment.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:07 | link | comments

Better living through Islam: Just so you know, you have Muslims to thank for every last modern discovery. From the Daily Times (Pakistan). (Hat tip: Writer Mom):

‘All modern discoveries are by Muslim scientists’

LAHORE: Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at the Government College University (GCU) on Monday. The seminar, titled The Problems of Historiography of Islamic Science, was held at Fazl-e-Hussain Hall. Saliba gave a critique of the standard classical accounts of the rise of Islamic science. He detailed problems in the accounts and explained alternative historiography that described the rise of an Islamic scientific tradition as a result of social and political conditions within the nascent Islamic empire. He said Muslim philosophy was the impetus behind Islamic science that had contributed to various disciplines including botany, zoology, algebra, trigonometry, physics, chemistry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, physiology and mathematics in the pre-industrial era. He said the use of decimal fractions was not a Western invention and that it was discovered by a Muslim scientist. He said the binary system, on which the computer was based, was also invented by a Muslim scientist. He said Arab/Islamic science was not an intermediary between Greek science and European science, but was rather the Renaissance that integrated the Islamic science with European science. Saliba also visited the English Language and Literature Department where he engaged faculty members in a conversation on the Islamic and Renaissance paradigms. staff report

And don’t forget, we can thank Muslims for much of the English language, too.

Interesting, though, that the scientists haven’t come up with a solution for this problem (reported in the same issue of the Daily Times). Although I’m sure Professor Saliba, who’s long been in the forefront of making inflating claims about Islam’s scientific contributions, has a ready answer for that. (Incidentally, he’s also been in the forefront of Columbia’s anti-Zionism efforts. From his Wiki entry: “In a documentary Columbia Unbecoming he, together with some other Columbia professors, including Joseph Massad, was accused of presenting anti-Israel viewpoints in their classes and stifling the dissenting opinions. Saliba rejected the accusation and published a rebuttal in Columbia Spectator (November 3, 2004) to that effect. ^[1]”)

 The truth about Islam and science--how Islam impedes scientific inquiry--can be found here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:22 | link | comments

Scott’s “modest proposal”: Way back when, Dean Swift, the guy who penned Gulliver’s Travels, offered what he called “a modest proposal” for how the Irish might deal with their terrible poverty. His proposal: they could sell their babies to rich Englishmen, who would eat them. (“I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food...”)

Swift, of course, was kidding. I’m not so sure the same can be said of Dilbert ‘toonist Scott Adams. In his blog, Adams suggests there’s only one sure-fire way to ward off global nuclear annihilation—America must submit:

Why We Should All Become Muslims

There are a lot of Christians in the world. They seem happy with their choice of religion. There are a lot of Hindus too, and they seem just as happy. It’s the same with the Buddhists, atheists, and Muslims. Your choice of religion, or no religion, seems to have no impact on your happiness.

People switch from every type of religion to every other type. Muslims become Christians, Christians become Buddhists, Hindus become atheists, and so on. If moving from any one of those religions to any other made people happier, we’d know that by now.

No one really knows the meaning of life, but we all agree that happiness is a worthy goal. And we all generally agree that being alive is better than being dead. Even suicide bombers believe in the value of life and happiness, and are willing to die to improve the situation for those they leave behind. They just aren’t good at it.

Therefore, if we are rational, we should all become moderate, peace-loving Muslims. Our happiness would stay the same, and Osama wouldn’t have as much reason to nuke us.

Being Muslim won’t entirely eliminate the problem of people trying to kill you. Sunnis and Shiites will still fight each other. But I have a hard time believing the United States would be a target for terror if we were all peace-loving Muslims and minded our own business.

Osama and his gang want to form a giant caliphate, essentially a world government run by Islamic law with an Islamic leader. But if 300 million Americans become Islamic, he’s not going to want us in the group because we’d be too influential with our relatively moderate ways. We’d be unsuitable as either an enemy or an ally. His best strategy would be to ignore us.

You’re probably thinking there is no way you could be happy becoming a Muslim, unless you already are one. But that flies in the face of all science and evidence. Apparently people can be just as happy no matter what religion they pursue. You wouldn’t like the transition period, but you don’t like living in a world that is dominated by a fear of nuclear terror either. And once you got used to your new religion, your happiness would revert to its norm.

But you won’t convert to Islam, and not just because everyone else has to do it or it won’t reduce the threat of terror. You won’t do it because you think it is a false religion. That’s irrational, because the existence of multiple religions tells you that people are not equipped to know which one is right, no matter how much they try. If humans had that capacity, everyone would already be the same religion, or at least all the smart people would.

And it’s irrational to believe you would not be happy as a Muslim when you see plenty of practicing Muslims in this country who are perfectly happy with their choice. You would be happy with any religion after you got used to it, especially if all your friends joined in.

Becoming a Hindu won&rsqu