.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

American Muslims Name School after Islamic Conqueror of Spain

About a month ago or so, a scandal broke out into the media sphere and the blogosphere in the USA about a Muslim charter school in Minnesota. The school was controlled by Muslim private persons, yet it received substantial public funding. The scandal arose from violations by the school of the conditions of its receiving public funding. The scandal intensified when non-Muslim journalists were attacked on school premises when trying to investigate the charges. This school was/is called the Tariq ibn Ziyad Academy. The major question that has not been asked by most media --MSM or blogs-- reporting on this affair is just who is this Tariq fellow. The answer to that question would tell us with whom these American Muslims identify.

Here are accounts of Tariq by respected historians Bernard Lewis & Carl Brockelmann:
It was in Spain that the Arabs achieved their greatest and most enduring conquest in Europe. . . Tariq, a Berber freedman [that is, a former slave] of Musa ibn Nusair, the Arab governor of north-west Africa, prepared a larger [second] expedition [to Spain] and in the Spring of 711 . . . landed some 7,000 men at Gibraltar (Jabal Tariq). From here he advanced into the interior [of Spain]. . . [after 712] the Arab advance was rapid and by 718 they had occupied the greater part of the peninsula [Spain & Portugal] and crossed the Pyrenees into southern France where their advance was checked only by the Franks under Charles Martel at the battle of Poitiers in 732. . ."
[B Lewis, The Arabs in History (London: Hutchinson 1970), pp 120-121]
Tariq ibn Ziyad [and Musa ibn Nusayr]. . . subjugated all of northern Spain from Saragossa to Navarre. [C Brockelmann, The History of the Islamic Peoples (New York: Capricorn 1960), p 84]
So these American Muslims using Minnesota state funds to propagate their religion, are telling us that they identify with a Muslim military leader who conquered a Western country which was subject to discriminatory Muslim rule over non-Muslims, in whole or in part, for nearly eight centuries. Did the Minnesota department of education approve of the choice of name? Could we say that the Muslims who set up the school were metaphorically spitting in the faces of non-Muslim Minnesotans?? Could we call the school's name a provocation?? Does naming their school after a bloody conqueror mean that George Bush's view of Islam as a "religion of peace" might be mistaken??
- - - - - - - -
Here is info on the Tarek ibn Ziyad [Tariq ibn Ziyad] Academy and the violence on its campus:
Assault on TV news crew, Tariq ben Ziyad Academy & here & here.

- - - - - -
Coming: More on Jews caught up in the Armenian genocide, Obama Is the War Candidate, peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, archeology in Jerusalem, etc.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Anti-Jewish Racists Deny the Jewish Right to Live in Judea-Samaria

It seems that the Palestinian Authority is the tail that wags the Western dog, making its overly generous Western benefactors jump through the hoops of "politically correct" Judeophobia and anti-Jewish racism, particularly, but not only, on the "settlement" issue. Do Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Land of Israel? The palestinian authority denies this right. Its brothers in the Arab League delightedly pick up the relay baton to beat the Jews with, and major Western powers fall in line. Saudi Arabia shares the denial of Jewish rights with other Arab League members and has great influence over American policy as well. Saudi money also influences other Arab states. Indeed, one report claims that a proposed UN Security Council resolution against Israeli "settlements" actually originated with the Saudis, not the palestinian authority.

Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice has accepted the Arab claims and joined in the hate chorus against Israel. She does not want Jews to even build homes in Jerusalem which has had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before, in Jerusalem, a city which became famous and significant to the world because of the Jewish history that took place there.

Condi represents the State Department which has long been anti-Israel in mood, tone, and policy, no matter who was in the White House. The racist attitude of Condi and her department as to where Jews may and may not reside goes back many years. This SD policy has no foundation in international law, which does not stop Condi and her cothinkers in the EU and UN from misrepresenting international law. One of the first to do this was the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, whose position is reported here.

Why is it racist to exclude Jews from inhabiting Judea-Samaria, or Gaza for that matter? First, because forbidding people to live in certain places because of their ethnic group or race, is racism, right off, ipso facto. Then, the forbidden people are Jews. Jews have been forbidden to inhabit many countries since their defeat at the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This includes the city of Jerusalem at the time of the defeat [135 CE] and Arabia after Muhammad and various countries in Europe from which Jews were driven out: England, France, Spain, parts of Germany, etc. The Russian Empire kept most Jews segregated in an area called the Pale of Settlement [Maybe the Quartet wants us to go back to live in the Pale of Settlement. That settlement would be OK]. So Condi Rice's policy should be viewed as anti-Jewish racism right off for that reason. The policy is often justified by claims that Judea-Samaria are "occupied" and that "international law" [Geneva Convention IV] forbids "transfer" of population to occupied territories. But Judea-Samaria are parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, of the Roman province of Judea. Denying the right of an exiled people to live in its homeland is unjust right off, isn't it? As to "transfer," which means compulsory migration, it does not apply since the Jews who went to live in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip did so willingly, indeed eagerly. Ironically, the no "transfer" clause in Geneva IV was meant to prevent Nazi-like mass deportations, which the "international community" --including the Western allies-- had done nothing to stop in the case of the Jews during the Holocaust, albeit a few countries were helpful to the Jews at that time.

International law, properly understood without the self-interested misrepresentations made by Arabs and Western Judeophobes and UN officials, recognizes the Jewish rights to Judea-Samaria which are parts of the Jewish National Home recognized by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations, a status confirmed in the UN charter [Article 80]. The partition plan recommended by the UN General Assembly in 1947 could not withdraw that recognition since it was a mere recommendation. Moreover, the Security Council did not have authority to withdraw a right recognized in the Charter itself.

Why are the EU, UK, USA, and UN so eager to deny Jewish rights to "settle" or build homes in Judea-Samaria??? Why does Condi Rice claim that Jews living in Judea-Samaria are "obstacles to peace" or some version of this claim?? Why isn't the Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish rights of residence in those places seen as an "obstacle to peace"?? The most likely explanation is Judeophobia. If they were really interested in human welfare, peace, human rights, etc. then they would have denounced the genocide perpetrated in the Sudan many years ago. Even now, the UN spends more time berating and dehumanizing Israel than it does on, for instance, the Darfur humanitarian crisis. If it's not Judeophobia, anti-Jewish racism, then find a better answer.

Just to clear up some history, while the Jewish National Home was controlled by British mandatory forces, Jews were driven out of several localities of great historical and religious importance for Jews, Hebron, parts of the Old City of Jerusalem, etc. Now the Arabs have the hutspah to claim that the part of Jerusalem that Arab forces took over in 1947-1948 is "traditionally Arab east Jerusalem." Yet the city has had a Jewish majority at least since 1853, with the all Jews living in the Old City in that year. In modern times, forbidding Jews to live in certain places was a feature of Nazi rule and their Judenrein policy. But the British too imposed land purchase regulations on Israel in 1940 as a follow up to the 1939 White Paper on palestine. Israel was divided into zones where Jews could or could not buy real estate. In the Jerusalem zone, Jews could only buy real estate from other Jews or from non-Muslims, not from Muslim Arabs. Most of the country was off limits to Jewish land purchase. And this was during the Holocaust!!! When Transjordan [now Jordan] took over most of Judea-Samaria in 1948, it imposed a total exclusion of Jews from living anywhere in the kingdom or even visiting the kingdom or even visiting Jewish holy places [such as Hebron and the Temple Mount], although Jordan had agreed to visits to the Jewish holy places in the armistice accord with Israel. If someone can supply a better explanation than Judeophobia for the exclusion of Jews, please let me know.

More recently, the so-called Quartet, the UN, EU, Russia, and USA pressured Israel to accept the so-called Road Map "peace plan." But this is a racist, Judeophobic document, since it demands that Israel stop building homes for Jews in parts of the internationally recognized Jewish National Home. The Road Map puts conditions on the palestinian Arabs too, to be sure, but we hear no demand that the PA stop violation of the two crucial conditions: 1) to stop anti-Jewish hate agitation and propaganda in its TV, radio, press, schools, mosques, etc. 2) to disarm terrorist militias. So here we have in fact two offenses by the "international community" against the Jews and the State of Israel. One is the simple, obvious racism of campaigning against Jews living in Judea-Samaria. The other is the violation of past international commitments to Israel and the Jews, such as the Jewish National Home principle accepted in 1920 at San Remo and subsequently endorsed in several international instruments, as well as the Road Map itself that made certain demands on the Arab side, as above, which nobody seems to remember anymore, not even the Israel government under its current illegitimate prime minister who by rights should be prosecuted and sent to jail for many many crimes. Here is a position taken by the government [Israel govt takes position ].
Now, the UN Security Council is taking up the Jewish offense of living where the Judeophobes don't want them to live. The EU and UK state with gusto that Jews don't have rights to live in the "wrong" places. The US position is slightly more moderate. That is, Jews building homes in Judea-Samaria or living there, are disrupting a "peace process" or an "obstacle to peace" or whatever slander the State Dept and Condi can think up. Ban-Ki Moon, UN secretary general, groundlessly claims that building for Jews inhabitants in Judea-Samaria is against "international law," which is false. It is also not Moon's job to interpret international law, much less to misrepresent it. President Bush took pride in being the first president of the US to come out for a "palestinian state," that is for a people that never existed in history, in an interview with a French paper. He added that he didn't want such a state to look like "Swiss cheese," a hint that Jewish settlements could do that [Maqor Rishon, 6-13-2008] . But what about the State of Israel and Jewish rights?? Furthermore, the Security Council debate is being spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states which have a very bad record on human rights, as everyone knows. It is quite relevant that both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have laws forbidding Jews to live in those countries. And now they want to enforce such exclusion in the Jews' own country!!!

- - - - - -
Coming: Jewish victims of the Armenian gencide, Jerusalem archeology, Hebron, Land of Israel, peace follies, propaganda, etc.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 06, 2008

British AgitProp Agencies Assault Israel, Skynews Omits Mention of Karsenty Acquittal

Was it a coincidence that 5 or 6 weeks after the alleged killing by an Israeli tank shell of a Gaza Arab cameraman working for Reuters, the story was revived on Skynews on 5-22-2008, a day after a French appeals court had acquitted Philippe Karsenty of libel for calling the alleged killing by Israeli troops of 12-year old Muhammad al-Durah [30 September 2000] -- a hoax?? British anti-Israel agitprop seems to be moving into high gear not only to deflect attention from the court decision in Paris but to intensify their usual smearing of Israel.

Now, it's not just coming from the BBC but from Sky and Reuters which are also British agencies. Coincidentally or not, just a day or two after a court in Paris ruled that Philippe Karsenty was not guilty of libel for calling the alleged Muhammad al-Durah killing [Sept 2000] a hoax, Skynews ran a similar, although not identical, smear of Israel with the cooperation of Reuters. The questionable character of the coincidence is confirmed by the fact that Skynews did not report the verdict in the Karsenty-France2-al-Durah case, which I ascertained from searches on Sky's website of posts between 5-20 & 5-24.

The French court made its ruling after the judges viewed extended but incomplete footage of events at the Netsarim intersection that day in 2000. The judge had called for all footage still in the hands of France2 to be shown to the court's next session [France2 and its employes had earlier alleged that 27 minutes of film footage remained that had not been broadcast] . However, France2 did not comply fully with the court's order and only showed 18 minutes of the alleged 27 at the next session [November 2007]. Some or all of the missing 9 minutes had been seen several years ago by Richard Landes, a history professor at Boston University, Luc Rosenzweig, a former chief editor of LeMonde, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, both journalists, separately on at least two separate occasions. Jeambar and Leconte published their reaction to viewing the footage, the "rushes," in an op ed in the French daily, LeFigaro. Rosenzweig published his conclusions on the MENA website which is available through the Guysen Israel News website linked to from our blogroll. Much info on this matter is found on Menahem Macina's debriefing website, including Jeambar & Leconte's op ed.

What the judges saw in the 18 minutes that France2 did bring to court indicated that the boy was alive after allegedly being killed according to the original France2 broadcast in 2000, even shifting a red cloth in his hand that in a still photograph might seem flowing blood. The judges were impressed that the death of Little Muhammad was not proven, let alone that Israeli bullets had killed him. They criticized France2, a state TV broadcaster, and Charles Enderlin, the France2 Jerusalem correspondent responsible for the original blood libel of late September 2000, among others. A pdf file of the court's verdict is available here.

Curiously indeed, after a French court rejects the al-Durah blood libel, Skynews and Reuters bring up the slightly stale case of a Gazan cameraman working for Reuters, insinuating that Israeli soldiers had deliberately killed him, knowing that he was a journalist. And this is done with considerable emotive verbiage on the part of Sky "news" presenters and Alistair MacDonald, head of the Reuters Jerusalem bureau, who is interviewed in the Sky feature story. MacDonald arrogantly asks: Why the Israelis had killed Our cameraman who was Only Going About His Business. Right there we have a dubious and unsupported factual claim, that is, that the Israelis knew that they were killing a cameraman. MacDonald's approach is like that of asking a man when he is going to stop beating his wife. Such a question presumes that the man beats his wife, without facts, without admission on his part.

Now, if we assume that the cameraman is indeed dead, then we need to point out that the tank was 1 kilometer or more away from the cameraman when it fired. Further, the film showed him carrying a film camera on his shoulder, which could easily look like a RPG launcher or like an anti-tank missile launcher to an observer a kilometer away. Moreover, Gaza Arab terrorists have in the past disguised themselves as journalists as well as medical personnel, painting the word "PRESS" on terrorist jeeps and hiding in ambulances, transporting weapons and explosives on ambulances, even using ambulances as car bombs. Obviously, on a battlefield, it is difficult to know who is that figure standing one kilometer away, besides the fact that Arab journalists in Gaza not only sympathize with one side over the other but have often provided direct help to terrorists in the form of information, carrying or concealing weapons, etc. Therefore, it was not likely that the tank crew knew that they were aiming at a cameraman. Of course, even if they were close to a man carrying a camera --shoulder-mounted or not-- and wearing an iridescent yellow press vest, they could not be sure that he was really a cameraman or journalist.

Another problem with this story as presented on Skynews on 5-22-2008 is that the number of dead victims in the incident has jumped from 3 [including the cameraman] on 4-16-2008 to nine [9] on 5-22-08. So the problem is not only the mendacity of Arab journalists & cameramen but the mendacity of Western journalists too. [see quotes below].

Indeed, it is a problem that journalists [including cameramen] with proper press credentials may take part in "news" hoaxes, like the Muhammad al-Durah "killing" hoax, which was perpetrated by Gaza cameramanTalal Abu Rahma with Charles Enderlin's cooperation. Indeed, Prof Richard Landes reports that when he viewed the rushes with Enderlin in the latter's Jerusalem offices, and that he [Landes] pointed out that much of the footage seemed fake, Enderlin answered: "Oh, they're always doing that" [that is, the Arab cameramen working for Enderlin].

On the other hand, it must be taken into account that anyone going onto a battlefield knowingly and willingly must know that he is taking a risk to his life, even if he is Only Going About His Business, in the words of the Sky/Reuters agitprop presentation. A battlefield is not a playground [שדה קרב אינו מתחם משחקים ] .

Now, despite engaging in moralistic high dudgeon over what they insinuate to have been the deliberate killing of a Reuters cameraman by Israel, neither Sky nor Reuters mentioned that Gaza Arab terrorists have been shooting rockets at the Israeli civilian population for more than seven years. If we search the Skynews and Reuters websites, we note that --although rockets are shot into Israel every day, mainly at the small city of Sderot-- there was no mention of Sderot by Sky between 19 March 2008 and now [6-6-2008]. Nor did Reuters mention Sderot from 28 April 2008 till now [6-6-2008]. This latest Reuters mention of Sderot focusses not on Israeli victims but on Gaza Arab victims. Hamas terrorists [al-Qassam] claimed that they had shot rockets at Sderot "in response to" Israeli attacks that had allegedly killed civilians in Gaza. But Hamas and other jihadist gangs shoot at Israel every day, usually at Sderot and neighboring farming communities, more recently at the larger city of Ashqelon. Apparently, Sky and Reuters would rather engage in a high dudgeon passion play over an allegedly dead Arab cameraman working for Reuters "going about his business" rather than make it the business of Sky/Reuters reporters and cameramen to go to Sderot or nearby kibbutzim to find out what it's like to be bombarded daily by Arab jihadi terrorists. By the way, a factory worker was killed yesterday [5 June 2008] on a kibbutz near Sderot. He was the father of three children.

The hypocritical --indeed, rather silly-- propaganda onslaught on Israel fits into a larger strategy, not only to demonize and dehumanize Israel and Israelis and Jews generally, but to support the Hamas campaign to raise the minimal blockade of Gaza [which gets food shipments from Israel regularly]. This propaganda assault is done by Hamas in cooperation with UN officials in Gaza who constantly speak of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza [where most of the adult population supports genocidal terrorists] but not the humanitarian plight of Jews in Sderot, Ashqelon, and neighboring towns, villages, and kibbutsim. The "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza is blamed on an Israeli "siege." But this "siege" is so light that it does not prevent medium-sized weapons from being brought in from Egypt through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border, and maybe in other ways too. If there is no "humanitarian crisis" for Jews in Sderot, Ashqelon, etc, according to UN officials, Hamas leaders, NGO spokesmen, and the major media --especially British media-- then maybe that means that Jews are not human. That's the purpose of the Skynews/Reuters propaganda assault.
- - - - - - - - -


Original BBC report, with video, on this incident (Augean Stables post, analysis and commentary on this incident) . According to the original BBC report, there are only 2 casualties besides the cameraman, not 8 [Sky report of 5-22-2008]. Two plus one equal three.
In other violence throughout the day, a Reuters cameraman was among three killed when his car exploded, apparently after being hit by an Israeli tank shell.
Two others died in the blast that killed the Reuters cameraman
[BBC 4-16-2008]
Here's the Reuters report on the incident:
GAZA, April 16 (Reuters)- A Reuters cameraman and two other Palestinian civilians were killed on Wednesday in what local residents said was an Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip. [Reuters 4-16-08]
Five weeks later:
Five weeks on from the death of Palestinian cameraman Fadel Shana, Israel has yet to announce the findings of its investigation into the incident - which also killed eight civilians, most of them teenagers or children. [Skynews, 5-22-2008, updated 5-23-08]
It seems that Time is not only a Great Healer but a Great Multiplier. This is a three-fold multiplication of the number of victims in only five weeks [4-16 to 5-22], from three to nine!!!
Film recovered from his camera shows an Israeli tank opening fire several hundred metres away, Reuters adds. [BBC, ibid.]
"Several hundred" is an indefinite number. Use of an indefinite, indeed vague, number is an old media trick meant to disguise an amount either too small or too large for purposes of the political message, without exactly lying. "Several hundred" might mean anything from 300 meters to 2 kilometers or more. Of course, measuring an exact distance is not easy without surveying tools.
On the other hand, Sky puts the Israeli tank "a mile away" [1 mile is nearly two km].
Shana was filming Israeli tanks on a ridge a mile away, when one of them opened fire... [Skynews. 5-22-08, updated 5-23-08]
Sky reports that:
Reuters news agency is demanding to know why the Israelis killed one of its cameramen as he was legitimately going about his business in Gaza.
[Skynews. 5-22-08, updated 5-23-08]
I have a demand too. I demand to know how 3 victims reported by BBC on 16 April had multiplied to 9 victims in Sky's report of 5-(22 & 23).

By the way, note that the collateral victims, besides the cameraman --sanctified simply by belonging to the press, are mainly "teenagers or children" [according to the Sky report quoted above]. What are children, or even teenagers, doing on a battlefield?? Weren't there any responsible adults to tell the kid victims to go home?? Bear in mind that the classical anti-Jewish blood libel, such as Simon of Trent, involves Jews allegedly killing a boy. So alleged death story of the Reuters cameraman also alludes to boys being killed, as was the case in the Muhammad al-Durah hoax.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Skynews passion play about the cameraman here1, here2, here3 by order of date. The first two are videos, the third is text.
Reuters report on French court decision absolving Karsenty of libel charge.
BBC report on the same.
Seconddraft and Augean Stables sites which bring much info about the Al-Durah Affair.
Draft English translation of the French court ruling.
- - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews caught up in the Armenian genocide, archeology in Jerusalem, peace follies, obama's subtle fakery, propaganda, etc.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Intensity of Propagation and Gramscian "Hegemony" of the Al-Durah Hoax Deceive Even Those of Good Will

A rather good Wall Street Journal editorial of 5-27-2008, shows that even those with good intentions get taken in by the al-Durah myth. The Journal writes that:

The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.
If we actually look at the film we see that the boy is crouching in front of his father. The father is next to the wall. The boy is more exposed than the father is to shooting coming from anywhere on a 180 degree arc [that is, within a semi-circle] based on the outermost point of the barrel and on a vertical plane parallel to the wall. This mistake by even a fair-minded observer shows how the myth created by Gaza Arab cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, by France2 correspondent Charles Enderlin, and by countless Islamic jihadist and pro-Arab Western propagandists ["journalists"] has the power to cause the highly visible empirical fact that the boy crouches in front of his father to be overlooked in the general gestalt view that the saintly father was trying to protect his martyred son. If anything, the boy is shielding his father. Here we have more testimony to the power of suggestion in a situation of ongoing indoctrination and emotion.

for more on the al-Durah Hoax or l'Affaire al-Dourah, see the foregoing post.
- - - - - - -

Coming: the anti-Jewish racism of the "peace process," more on Zionist activists and other Jews in the Armenian genocide, propaganda, peace follies, Condi Rice's anti-Israel Bigotry, etc.

Labels: , , ,