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

Emet m'Tsiyon

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Mahmoud Abbas, Salim Fayyad, & PLO Plan an Apartheid Judenrein State - Shmuel Trigano

UPDATING 11-1&5-2010

The peace in "peace process" refers
to peace of mind for antisemites.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

The PLO charter already made clear in its two versions, of 1964 and 1968, that the state envisioned by the PLO would be an Arab state in which Jews would not have a place, or if allowed to live in it, would be legally inferior to Arab Muslims. Thus, the envisioned "State of Palestine" would enforce the old Muslim principle of inferiority of rights of non-Muslims in the Islamic domain. Jews would be especially cast in an inferior status with few rights or circumscribed rights, if they were allowed rights at all. Shmuel Trigano makes an analysis of official PLO and Palestinian Authority documents. Shall we call the plan for a future Palestine state --not unlike the present semi-state, the Palestinian Authority, which enforces apartheid and/or exclusion on Jews-- an apartheid state??

By • Shmuel Trigano, Paris University
Published in: Original Submission to SPME Faculty Forum October 17, 2010

During a meeting with the Egyptian press in Cairo at the beginning of August, Mahmud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, and the man on whom the United States and Europe have placed all of their hopes for peace, revealed what was at the back of his mind with regard to the Jews and the nature of the regime he plans to set up in the future State of Palestine. The official demands of the Palestinians for a settlement are known: Israel’s agreement in advance to withdraw to the borders of 1967, a freeze of construction in the territories including Jerusalem, the division of this city, including the Old City, which must become part of the Palestinian Authority, the solution of the problem of the “refugees” in conformance with Arab demands and Resolution 194 of the General Assembly of the U.N.).

When considering the possibility that a third force, such as NATO, could be given the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the planned agreement, Mahmud Abbas imposed a condition: that there should not be a single Jewish soldier and any Israeli. “I am ready to accept a third party which supervises the implementation of the agreement, NATO forces for example, but I will not accept the presence of Jews in these forces or a [single] Israeli on the Land of Palestine.”

Is such a demand tainted with antisemitism? It should not come as a shock, if we remember that Mahmud Abbas defended his doctoral thesis which was based on Holocaust denial at a school for political indoctrination in the Soviet Union.

Some may see a polemical and ideological expression in the term “racist,” but Mahmud Abbas’ demand with regard to NATO leaves no doubt in this respect. What does it really mean when he demands that the European states, members of NATO, exclude their Jewish citizens from the ranks of their forces? Can one imagine such a situation and the juridical mechanisms that these states would have to activate in order to separate the Jews from their citizens? As it happens, Mahmud Abbas does not help them by defining the criteria of who is a Jew: religious law, ethnic origins, the father, the mother, the grandfather? It is all the more remarkable that Saudi Arabia, during the Gulf War in 1990-1992, permitted American Jewish soldiers to serve with the American forces on its territory, a land which, according to the Koran, is sacred and should not shelter any non-Moslem. In all of these cases, it is not a question of Israelis, but of Jews, and one knows that the Arabs, in their immense majority do not make a distinction. “Yahoud” [Jew], in this region, designates without hesitation “The Israeli.” What Abbas says about Jews, he says about Israelis, as we have seen, and he demands that the Europeans, so attentive to his wishes, that they accept his conditions.

The refusal to recognize Israel, the Jewish State

There is a perfect coherence between this demand toward the West and the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, which on many occasions Abbas or Saeb Erekat, his “minister” of foreign affairs, have articulated. The two positions with regard to NATO and refusal to recognize the Jewish State, as such, share of the same anti-Semitism. The thinking behind this refusal, currently repeated as a leitmotiv, has not been sufficiently analyzed. We can immediately dismiss the most current explanation that a state does not have to recognize the “religion” of another State. This is a stalling tactic, which PLO used numerous times in the past, especially in the Palestinian Charter, as we shall see below. To be specific, “Jew” here means a “nation”, not a “religion”. It is with that intention that the UN Resolution (181, II), of November 1947, uses 23 the expression “Jewish State” twenty three times, when it advocates the creation of “two states in Palestine, a Jewish one and an Arab one” (see especially article 3).

In order to understand what this refusal means and why it is not motivated by nationalistic but racist intentions, we shall have to consider it in the context of collateral evidence.

If one examines its link to the demand for the return of the “refugees” of 1948, the picture is clear. Under the weight of five million refugees Israel would automatically become a country with an Arab and Islamic majority, a binational state where the Jews would be a minority, while Palestine would become uniquely Arab. Not one Jew, not even under the flag of NATO or the UN, would be able to be in Palestine, but five million Arabs would join the million Israeli Arabs already residing in the State of Israel and openly rebel against the notion of a Jewish (national) state.

The Palestinian Authority is building a racist regime based on the principle of establishing an apartheid between a Palestine untainted by Jewish blood and a mixed State of Israel where the Jews would become a minority. In its refusal to recognize a Jewish state, there is, in fact, more then a rejection and denial of Jewish history and identity. One may well understand that this improper and exorbitant demand serves a politically correct fig leaf for its fundamental refusal to recognize the State of Israel. On this point, the PLO abandoned its bluff of a “Secular and Democratic Palestine,” which it had promoted in the decade between 1980 and 1990, except that the Palestinians now demand that this formula be imposed on Israel, as they would like it to be, [1] while Palestine proper would be purely Arab.

State-sanctioned Racism and Segregation

Palestine proper would be, indeed, Arab and Islamic. That is written explicitly in the draft constitution of the planned state: “This constitution is based on the will of Palestinian-Arab people,” (Article 1), “the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nation,” (Article 2), “sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people,” (Article 10), “the legal character of the Arab-Palestinian people will be embodied by the state,” (Article 13). “Islam will be the official religion of the state,” (Article 6).

We can verify this last principle (the Islamic quality of the state) in the light of the use of rhetorical obfuscation (Article 6) to which the drafters of this constitution resort when they give the appearance of making space for non-Moslems: “Islam will be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions will be respected.”

Who are these odd “monotheists” (and what about the Hindus, the Confucians, the Behais, etc., forbidden to live in Palestine?) if not a politically correct version of the old dhimmi status imposed on non-Moslems by the Koranic law? In practice, this article would apply only to Christians, because there should be no more Jews in the State of Palestine …

This strange “monotheistic” statute permits us to understand by deduction the Palestinian Authority’s vision of the state of Israel (that is to say of Jewish Israelis). In Palestine, the Jews theoretically would not be citizens, because they are neither “Arabs” (the key to Palestinian nationality according to articles 10 and 13), nor “Moslems,” (key to the Palestinian national law according to article 6). Although they would be “respected,” they would fall outside of national sovereignty, the exclusive privilege of the Arabs (Article 10), who could be Christians or Moslems, indeed, but with a restriction. Since the law would conform to Islamic law, Christian Arabs could only be second class citizens, subjected to the status which Koranic law imposes on them, a status which excludes them from the general law which applies to the Moslems, a status granted however as a privilege. As they are not subjected to the rules of (Islamic) national law with regard to their personal status, they will be permitted to act autonomously within the framework of their law and religious tribunals.

This was already the case before the colonial era, before Islam lost all power over non-Moslems, and this is indeed what the Palestinian constitution provides for in its Article 7: “the principles of Islamic Sharia are the first source of legislation. The legislative power will determine the law of personal status under the authority of the monotheistic religions in conformity with their religions, with due respect to the clauses of the constitution and the preservation of unity, of the stability and progress of the Palestinian [Moslem] people.”

The problem is twofold: Sharia will not only apply to them when their “personal” status is at stake (and this status is segregative: it included, in the pre-colonial era, political submission, submission in behavior and religion, payment of a head tax, the djizya, or a financial tax on the land from which they have been dispossessed, the kharadj, etc) but also in their quality as citizens. It will indeed govern the citizenry as the law of the state (art. 6). Non-Moslems will be subject to its rulings as citizens and not only as believers.

How does the “monotheistic” statute reveal the vision which the Palestinian Authority has with regard to what the State of Israel should be, and which it does not want to recognize as “Jewish”? Would it recognize the “monotheist” character of the Israelis but not the Jewish character of their state? Would not the term, “Jewish,” designate a “monotheist”?

It is the understanding of the status of the dhimmi which could help us to grasp this apparent contradiction which contains a nasty trick for those who do not understand the categories of Moslem culture. The status of the dhimmi, one must know, is not personal but applies to collectivities, to the “nations” (millet from the times of the Turks) politically subjected to Islamic power since the “Conquest.”

It is necessary to explain the theological basis of the collective condition of the dhimmi. According to the Koranic vision, there were different “umma” [peoples] in history, each one rising to the call of a prophet (Moses, Jesus, etc.), until the advent of the final “umma,” which rose to the call of Islam. The basis of an umma is thus a ‘religion.”

In this sense, the Palestinian leaders cannot recognize the right of a Jewish state (and in fact any state which would not be Islamic), which would entail the self-determination and sovereignty of a collectivity whose only possible status under Islam is that of dhimmi. This would be an affront to the Islamic umma. A Jewish state thus constitutes essentially a scandal. The two terms, “State,” and “Jewish” therefore constitute, as theological-political matter, an impossible alloy. The Jews cannot have a state. They are not a people of political standing, because there can only be The Umma. They [the Jews] can neither be free nor sovereign.

An unclear “nationalism”

This classical Islamic perspective was much more evident in the sixties and seventies when the PLO did not resort to double talk to such a sophisticated degree, even if it already made use of western concepts (religion and state) to express Islamic notions. What does one read indeed in the PLO Charter in its first version (1964)? “The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything which derives from them are declared null and void. The claims of the Jews to historical and religious links with Palestine are incompatible the historical facts and the true conception of what a nation consists. Judaism, being a religion, does not constitute an independent nationality. For the same matter, the Jews do not constitute a unique nation with its own identity. They are citizens of the states to which they belong” (Article 20).

This is already a strange remark for a culture which confuses the political and the religious… It does not prevent the PLO, in the same text, from insisting on the exclusive Arab character of Palestine: “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. It is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people is a part of the Arab nation (Article 1.)” […] “Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine constitute two complementary goals” (article 13) “The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred objective.” Here, the term, Arab nation, really designates the Umma.

We discover in this remark the extent to which the strictly Palestinian “national” framework is recent (the second version of the charter was published in 1968). “The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order for it to contribute to the realization of this objective, it is necessary however, at this stage of the struggle to safeguard the Palestinian identity and develop its consciousness of this identity,” (Article 12) because (Article 1): “Palestine is the home of the Arab Palestinian people. It is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people is an integral part of the Arab nation.” Actually, despite the “nationalistic” formulation of this clause, the term, Arab nation, defines other words the Islamic Umma. Palestine belongs to the Umma (which cannot renounce a part of Islamic land).

It is noteworthy that in their constitutional documents, the Moslem Brotherhood write the same thing about Jews/Israelis, although in a more extreme manner in the case of the Hamas. Let the reader judge. With regard to the dhimmis, the Hamas charter declares that “the Islamic Resistance Movement … is guided by Islamic tolerance when it deals with the faithful of other religions. It does not oppose them except when they are hostile. Under the banner of Islam, the faithful of the three religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, can coexist peacefully. But this peace is not possible except under the banner of Islam.” With regard to the nature of the Palestinian country, the Hamas takes the view that: “The Movement of Islamic Resistance believes that Palestine is an Islamic Wakf [Religious patrimony] consecrated for [the future] generations of Moslems until the Last Judgment. Not a single parcel of this can be divested or abandoned to others […] (Article 11).

PLO Charter: an antecedent of this old-new racism

The Palestinian Charter of the PLO is more explicit with regard to the racist motives beneath such an apparent nationalistic statement and it finds expression with regard to all the Jews outside the state of Israel. It states in its Article 23, “The need of security and of peace, as well as that of justice and law, require of all the states that they consider Zionism as an illegitimate movement, that they declare its existence illegal, that they forbid its activities, so that the friendly relations between peoples can be preserved, and that the loyalty of citizens to their respective countries may be preserved.” What does this canned expression “loyalty of citizens toward their respective countries,” describe other than the Jews of the whole world (essentially of the Western countries), not Israelis, whom the Charter singles out for suspicion and the vindictiveness of their respective states, and implies that they are not faithful and could stand up for Israel against the interest of their respective states: that they are in fact Israelis, that is to say, more crudely, “The Jews.” They are depicted precisely with the classic traits of antisemitism: the Jewish conspiracy.

Article 22 of the Charter thus traces the borders in this “anti-Zionist” antisemitism: “Zionism is a political movement bound organically to an international imperialism and hostile to all action for the liberation and every progressive movement in the world. The Zionist by his nature is racist and fanatical, aggressive, expansionist, colonial in his objectives, and fascist in his methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement and the geographical base of world imperialism, strategically placed in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes for liberation, unity and progress of the Arab nation. Israel is a constant source of threats to the peace of the Middle East and in the whole world. Because the liberation of Palestine will destroy Zionism and the imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of the peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people demands the aid of all the progressive forces [which are] oriented toward peace, and enjoins them, without distinguishing between their affiliation and creed, to offer their aid and support to the Palestinian people in its struggle for the liberation of its homeland.” Zionism” here is another word for the classical “Jewish Conspiracy.”

International and Israeli Passivity:

There has been no European or American reaction to condemn Abbas’ odious remarks in Egypt. Could it be that the world knows very well what to expect from the “moderate” Palestinians? But if this is the real reason for this astounding silence, why should one believe in the Palestinian desire for peace and the myth of Abbas’ moderation? No reaction of protest emanated from the European and American Jewish institutions, to disturb the summer’s torpor. No reaction was forthcoming from the Israeli government. Where are the idealistic souls of the European JStreet, JCall, to castigate this “moral mistake” and this openly bellicose declaration? This silence gives an idea of the indulgence of the public with regard to the Palestinian and Arab-Islamic demands and their lack of interest with regard to the impasse into which they want to throw Israel and the whole Jewish world.

[1] As post Zionists define it “A state of all its citizens”…

Shmuel Trigano is Professor at Paris University (Sociology of Politics), among his recent publications in English is, The Democratic Ideal and the Shoah. The Unthought in Political Modernity, SUNY Press, 2009 [link to site of SPME]

Trigano demonstrates what should have been common knowledge long ago, that the PLO and its outgrowth, the Palestinian Authority, are really pan-Arabist entities, masquerading to the West as representatives of a "separate, distinct, palestinian people." The PLO charter demonstrates that there is no such people. The PLO's representation in the Organization of the Islamic Conference demonstrates that it does not believe in human rights.
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 11-1-2010
Lee Smith has also noted PA/PLO plans for a Judenrein, apartheid state where Jews are forbidden to live and those now living in areas claimed by the PLO/PA will be forcibly transferred or "ethnically cleansed" from their homes. Smith points to this interview in particular.
Shmuel Trigano writes on the process of expulsion of the native Jews from Arab lands which he dates from 1920 to 1970. It was in this period that liberal freedoms and equality introduced in some Arab lands began to be eroded in law and the Jews' status declined before the rise of the State of Israel in 1948.
Yaron Harel
writes that the Jews of Syria began leaving after the Damascus Affair of 1840 [in which French diplomacy had encouraged persecution of local Jews]. Harel's book is In Ships of Fire to the West: Changes among Syrian Jewry in the Period of Ottoman Reforms, 1840-1880 [בספינות של אש למערב] (Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar 2003).
Books by Michael Lasker and Bat Yeor may also be helpful in studying this general subject, as well as Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East (London: McFarland 1991). Bat Yeor takes up the general history of the non-Muslim subject peoples in the Islamic state going back to early Islam. They were oppressed as dhimmis. Nisan takes up non-Arab Muslim peoples & non-Muslim subject peoples and minorities.
Elliott A Green
takes up the oppression of Jews in Arab lands generally and in Jerusalem in particular [& here].

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Lebanese Speak Out against Ahmadinejad & Hizbullah

UPDATING 10-15 & 11-30-2010 at bottom

A group of prominent Lebanese have spoken out against Ahmadinejad, who is now visiting Lebanon as if to signal that he has completed the takeover of the country. Lebanese and people in various Arab states need to realize that Israelophobia was used as a means and/or pretext for building up Hizbullah's power in the state so that it overshadowed all other forces in the country, including the state itself. In many Arab countries Israelophobia and Judeophobia are political tools and pretexts for armed groups and tyrants to control the state and limit the freedom of the population. After Syria, with the help of US secretary of state James Baker, had suppressed the last holdout of Lebanese independence, General Aoun, in 1990, it was agreed at a "peace" conference under pan-Arab auspices [Taif] that all Lebanese militias would be disarmed, except for the Hizbullah. As the AFP article below says, Hizbullah & Syria claimed that the Hizb ought not divest itself of its weapons, "arguing they were needed to defend the country against Israeli aggression." And with those weapons supposedly for use against Israel --and with all other militias disarmed-- Hizbullah helped Syria control the country --occupied by Syria up to 2005.

It also seems that the Hizb helped Syria murder former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, in 2005. This is one lesson among many of how Israelophobia became a political weapon used by Arab tyrants and the power hungry against other Arabs. Unfortunately, former Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora did not comprehend this when in August 2006 he urged the great powers dominating the UN Security Council to pass a war-ending resolution that had little teeth to prevent Hizbullah from rearming and receiving weapons from Syria. The Hizb rearmed to the point where it predominates over the whole Lebanese political/military system, even without direct Syrian intervention except to supply weapons across the Lebanon-Syria border that barely exists now in reality. That disastrous UN SC resolution, 1701, has led to the current pathetic situation of joint Syrian-Iranian-Hizbullah domination of the country and Hizb threats of a renewed civil war if the UN Tribunal to investigate the Hariri murder identifies prime suspects in the murder, naming names. UN SC res. 1701 has also led to A-jad's triumphal visit to Lebanon, whereas he has called southern Lebanon, "Iran's border with Israel." To conclude, let's not forget the shameful role in promoting 1701 of Israel's moronic then foreign minister, Tsipi Livni, still today bleating stupid admonitions at PM Netanyahu, and Israel's crooked prime minister at that time, Ehud Olmert, now on trial and also admonishing Netanyahu, not overlooking Condoleezza Rice then secretary of state under George Bush II and the governments of Britain and France. And let's again cite Fuad Siniora for doing so much to bring Lebanon down to its present state.

Ahmadinejad accused of meddling in Lebanon's affairs

By blade 12/10/2010 - 23:17

AFP - Lebanese politicians and members of civil society issued an open letter to Iran's president on Tuesday, accusing him on the eve of his official visit to Lebanon of meddling in the country's affairs.

The letter was signed by some 250 people, among them former MPs close to the Western-backed parliamentary majority, doctors, teachers and journalists. It lashed out at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over Iran's support of Lebanon's Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

"One group in Lebanon draws its power from you ... and has wielded it over another group and the state," said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

"You are repeating what others have done before you by interfering in our internal affairs," the letter added, referring to Tehran's financial and military backing of Hezbollah, considered a proxy of Iran.

Hezbollah, far the most powerful military and political force in Lebanon, has been locked in a standoff with Western- and Saudi-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri over a probe into the 2005 murder of his father, ex-premier Rafiq Hariri.

Tensions have been mounting between the two sides over unconfirmed reports that a UN-backed tribunal is set to indict Hezbollah members over the murder, a scenario the militant group has openly rejected.

Hezbollah is the only party in Lebanon that refused to surrender its weapons after the end of the 1975-1990 civil war, arguing they were needed to defend the country against Israeli aggression.

The letter, signed by former MPs Fares Souaid, Samir Frangieh and Elias Atallah, criticized Ahmadinejad for declaring support for the Lebanese state while simultaneously providing Hezbollah with financial and military backing.

"Your support of the state is negated by your parallel financial and military support to one party in Lebanon," the letter said, referring to Hezbollah.

"Your talk of 'changing the face of the region starting with Lebanon' ... and 'wiping Israel off the map through the force of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon' ... gives the impression that your visit is that of a high commander to his front line," it added.

The letter also urged Ahmadinejad to convince Hezbollah during a two-day visit starting Wednesday to exist within the confines of the state.

Ahmadinejad is set to meet with his Lebanese counterpart Michel Sleiman as well as Hariri and other politicians during his trip, which will be his first to Lebanon since his election in 2005.

However, the highlight of the visit will be a tour of Lebanon's volatile border with his arch-enemy Israel.

[see AFP article here] [also see our previous blogs on Lebanon here & here]

UPDATING 10-15-2010 Jonathan Tobin on A-jad's tour of his domain[here]
11-30-2010 Carlo Panella describes the horrid situation in Lebanon with the opponents of Hizbullah and its Iranian & Syrian sponsors fearing for their lives and lying through their teeth to protect their skins, knowing that the pro-Syrian Obama cabal in Washington will do nothing to help them [qui]. Sa`ad Hariri, whose own father was murdered by a massive car bomb or truck bomb in 2005 planted by Hizbullah operating on Syria's behalf, now speaks sweet platitudes to Syrian & Iranian leaders. The UN-sponsored Special Tribunal on Lebanon is about to announce indictments of Hizbullah gangsters for the Hariri murder, although it may be dissuaded by the fears of Saad Hariri & other opponents of Syrian-Iranian hegemony in Lebanon who see no way out of their trap at present.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Ahmadinejad's Visit to Lebanon -- Trumpeting War Hysteria against Israel

UPDATING 10-7&8-2010

The "peace" in the "peace process"
refers to peace of mind for antisemites

"Southern Lebanon is Iran's border with Israel," quoth the bloodthirsty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the loudest of the Iranian warmongers. Like the academic big liar, Edward Said, A-jad is not only coming to Lebanon [on 13 October] but will come to the Israeli border at the Fatima Gate and will throw a stone or stones at Israel. Could his intentions toward Israel be made clearer than through this symbolic gesture?? Of course, stoning Jews is a customary practice in Arab-Muslim lands, usually left, however, to schoolboys and urchins. A-jad well knows that stoning Israeli territory from Lebanon is a symbolic act of war. Carlo Panella has already explained that for most purposes Lebanon is now dominated by Hizbullah, backed by Syria and Iran. Hizbullah head Nasrollah proclaims that he is the delegate in Lebanon of the Guide of the [Islamic] Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is this pro-Iranian hegemony in Lebanon that makes possible the A-jad visit.

JEDyer reports that A-jad will be greeted by Iranian flags and other happy news -- for him.
Hezbollah has flown Iranian flags in southern Lebanon for some time. The terrorists operate an Iran-sponsored fiefdom there; UNIFIL has been unable for months to conduct patrols in towns denied to it by Hezbollah, a pattern repeated this past weekend when the UN force sought to investigate a Hezbollah weapons cache in its patrol zone.
Carlo Panella points out that, thanks to the Hizb, southern Lebanon has become a Mediterranean province of Iran, like Gaza thanks to Hamas, another hungry and ill-treated band of misunderstood progressives. He says that Western fantasies of "detaching" Syria from Iran have proven illusory, which does not mean that Europe or the US will give them up. France, Italy & other Western states sent troops to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon ostensibly in order, among other things, to enforce UN Security Council res. 1701, which --also ostensibly-- calls for the disarmament of the Hizbullah militia. But Lebanon's govt and army want to build up the army, rather than disarm the Hizbullah militia, which happens to be the strongest armed force in the country. So if the Euros and the US wanted to disarm the Hizb, they have failed, their resolution 1701 has failed, and they can go back to blaming Israel for all problems in the Middle East, in the larger Muslim world, and worldwide, as Bill Clinton did in so many words the other day.

On Assad's recent visit to Teheran, he was awarded a "medal of honor" for aiding the "resistance" against "the threats of the Zionist regime" [here Khamenei was projecting. He is more liberal with threats than Israel is]. He also asserted:
"The United States has failed in its attempts to break the Iran-Syria axis of resistance in the Middle East." [Il Foglio, 5 October 2010]

“Gli Stati Uniti falliranno nei loro tentativi di rompere l’asse della resistenza in medio oriente tra Iran e Siria”. [Il Foglio, 5 Ottobre 2010]
So Khamenei and his govt spit in Obama's face and Obama's says that it's rain. "We are going to keep on working to have a dialogue with Teheran," Obama says in so many words over and over, whenever the Iranians rebuff him and make him out to be a fool.

In the ever so chummy relationship between the two tyrannies, Iran & Syria, and with the permissive signals from Washington, Assad took advantage of the warm climate to issue arrest warrants for 33 persons for allegedly giving "false" testimony as to the major Syrian role in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri [February 2005]. He also attacked the first chief investigator of the International Tribunal to investigate the Hariri murder, Detlev Mehlis. Assad can get away with those sorts of provocations but Israel cannot.

JEDyer helpfully adds that the international media neglect of southern Lebanon [to be sure, a military zone controlled by Hizbullah aided by the Lebanese army] allows the Hizb to build up its forces quietly without interference, although the A-jad visit to the zone may indicate that the work is basically finished and may herald many more provocations against Israel from the Hizb from now on. Dyer also points out that a British diplomat in UN garb, one "Michael Williams, met with an Iranian envoy last week to discuss the visit by Ahmadinejad and approved it as a 'significant event.' He went on to hail 'Tehran’s balanced approach and inclusive relations with all political and religious parties in' "[Lebanon]. The British do have a flair for warmongering by means of all sorts of ooey-gooey, sticky sweet words.

Lee Smith describes Hizbullah as an Iranian propaganda tool [here]
J E Dyer basically concurs with Panella [here]. See Panella [qui] and our summary of Panella's previous article on Lebanon [here]
UPDATING 10-7-2010 Max Boot supplies some data on Hizbullah weaponry [quoted from the NYTimes]. Boot wonders why the Obambi adminstration is more concerned about Jews building houses where Obama & Co. don't want them to be built than about the threat of war from Hizbullah [here].
UPDATING 10-8-2010 Caroline Glick lists US Govt actions or failures to act that delivered Lebanon into Hizbullah-Syrian-Iranian hands [here]

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Bad News from Lebanon -- Thanx to You, Ehud Barak & Barack Obama

UPDATING 10-6-2010

The peace in the "peace process"
means peace of mind for antisemites

More bad news from Lebanon. Thanx mucho to Ehud Barak, who gave up Israel's security zone in Lebanon in 2000, betraying Israel's Lebanese friends, leaving the ground free for the taking to the Hizbullah, and encouraging yasser arafat to start another terrorism war against us, called the Oslo War or the Second Intifada. Also thanx mucho to Barack Hussein Obama whose shameful pro-Assad diplomacy regarding Syria, amounted to toadying to mass murderers, Judeophobes, thugs, and big liars. The Hizbullah basically completed its takeover of Lebanon early last summer when the elected majority, belonging to the anti-Syrian hegemony March 14 movement, did not get backing from Washington for resisting the Hizbullah's takeover drive.

Now, Carlo Panella reports that the violent verbal attack by Lebanon's president, Michel Suleiman on the pro-Hizbullah UNIFIL [UN interim force in Lebanon] as being pro-Israel & on the international tribunal investigating the Hariri murder indicate that Hizbullah now "exercises full political hegemony over Lebanon's armed forces and institutions," that Lebanon is now aligned with the extremist positions of Teheran & Damascus, and that war with Israel may be imminent. He adds that these developments "confirm the total failure of the opening to Syria by the USA, France & the EU. . . " [qui -- in Il Foglio, 9-30-2010]. Panella concludes that the way is now open for more attacks and provocations against Israel from Lebanese territory. [qui]
Another victory for 21st century cruelty and barbarism thanx to The One, the Apostle of Hope & Change.

- - - - - - - - -
Jennifer Rubin thinks that Obama's Syria policy is "in shambles" [here]. Isn't she being too polite to Obama?? Maybe he has obtained the results that he and his advisors wanted. She points out that Syria has facilitated Hizbullah's rearmament -- which has gone beyond what the Hizb had before the 2006 war-- and that Syria and Iran are "chummier than ever." Maybe Obama has done the job that he was assigned to accomplish. Don't forget that Zbig B is Obama's mentor.
J E Dyer on Ahmadinejad's upcoming visit to Lebanon as an announcement of war against Israel [here].

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 01, 2010

More on Apartheid -- Arab-Muslim Religious Apartheid in Egypt

UPDATING 10-1-2010 &1-12-2011

Responsible Arab & Muslim bodies advocate religious apartheid. Of course, the dhimma system which began as a means for the Arab-Muslim conquerors to oppress, economically exploit and humiliate native subject peoples in their new empire always had aspects of apartheid, although based more on religion and nationality than on skin color and biological race. In order to accommodate modern times and modern medical science, the Muslim apartheid system has been updated.
"The Union of Egyptian Physicians has recently announced [2008] that transplants between persons of 'divergent creeds or nationalities' should be forbidden, the transgressors punished. This decision not only surpasses the Parliament [of Egypt] (where a new law on this matter is still under discussion) but it especially signals an aggravation of the tense relations between Egyptian Christians and Muslims." [Corriere della Sera, 20 August 2008]

Il Sindicato dei Medici egiziani ha da poco annunciato [2008] che trapianti tra persone di "diverso credo o nazionalita" vanno proibiti. [Corriere della Sera, 20 Agosto 2008]
The idea for this ban came from the Muslim Brotherhood who control the Physicians Union, according to Nabil el-Gindi, a doctor. He adds that the Islamist physicians "say that it is needed to avoid the organ trade, that rich Christians now buy them [organs] for two pounds [Egyptian pounds] from poor Muslims."

I have not ascertained whether this decision by the physicians union was written into law or if some similar bill became law. However, this is how the majority of Egyptian physicians think, this is how the Muslim Brotherhood thinks. And some people in Washington and London are eager to negotiate with the Hamas which is the Palestinian Arab affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many in DC and London are eager to have the MB allowed to take over the Egyptian govt since it probably has majority support in Egypt. Then the anti-democratic MB could be dealt with as a democratically elected governing party because it could probably win a majority vote.

El-Gindi informs us that in Egyptian hospitals and medical schools, Coptic Christians, the purest native Egyptians, are discriminated against. He reports that some of the best Coptic physicians leave the country, forced to emigrate. One of them, Magdi Yacoub, is a world famous cardiologist, now living in London.

Jimmy Carter has not noticed this situation. Or if he has, he has been quiet about it. Of course, neither the well-funded "human rights" and civil rights bodies, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, nor the UN's so-called "human rights council", is interested in the openly avowed support for apartheid by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor in the regular oppression and humiliation undergone by Copts, native Egyptian Christians, in Egypt. Only Israel can do wrong. Only Israel is to be accused.

These "human rights" and "civil rights" bodies are manipulative instruments trying to influence and manipulate public opinion. They can rightly be called Judeophobic or antisemitic.

UPDATING 10-1-2010
As of early 2010, Egypt had not yet passed a law on transplants. What is significant is the attitude of Egyptian physicians themselves who favor banning transplants between persons of different religions or nationalities. Bear in mind that Muhammad Atta's family were Egyptian physicians and Dr al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden's second in command [or perhaps top commander of al-Qa`ida, if Ben Laden is indeed dead, as some believe] is an Egyptian physician.

Here is another report:
The Egyptian Medical Association, through its spokesman on August 18 [2008], denied that a bill in the Egyptian parliament would discriminate between Christians and Muslims by prohibiting organ transplants between members of the two faiths. The Association supports the controversial measure. “This is all to protect poor Muslims from rich Christians who buy their organs and vice versa,” explained Hamdi Al Sayed – the director of the Medical Association. Under the bill, physicians who violate the proposed law would face retribution.

Al Sayed denied any sectarianism in the proposed law saying that “if some Copts are angered by the law then why is it that Muslims are not.” Even so, Al Sayed said that under the draft law, it’s not possible for a Coptic Christian to donate organs to a Muslim and vice versa simply because donations have been restricted to family members up to the fourth degree. Al Sayed continued “…it is degrading for both religions if lets say, a poor Christian has to sell his kidney to a rich Muslim, or a poor Muslim has to sell his kidney to a rich Christian. It is not right for either religion and that is why we made this law so we can stop organ trafficking.” Finally, Al Sayed continued, “It is not about trying to promote differences between religions but it’s just to minimize the trade of organs as much as we can.”

Speaking for Coptic Christians, Bishop Marcos said “We all have the same Egyptian blood, but if the reason for the measure is to end organ trafficking, we reject it because it may also occur between believers of the same religion.” For Bishop Marcos, the Association’s decision is “very grave” since it can lead to prohibiting blood donation between Christians and Muslims [here]
More links
in English [here&here&here]

in Italian [qui & qui (citato della Repubblica)]
1-12-2011 Aftermath of Alexandria massacre on New Years Eve [here]

Labels: , , , ,