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

Emet m'Tsiyon

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Hamas Regulates Ladies' Lingerie

Another scene of mass deprivation in Gaza. This photo appeared on Yahoo next to a sensational, spicey story about Hamas' interest in Ladies' Lingerie as a possible demonstration of immodesty and immorality. The photo is of interest too as it shows a sidewalk formed of checkered, smooth paving stones, something you might expect to find on Rodeo Drive in LA or on Fifth Avenue in New York. The Via Condotti in Rome has nothing like it, as I noted the last time that I visited there.

A Palestinian woman walks next to mannequins outside shops in Gaza City
Click here for photo in larger format.

Hamas targets women's underwear in modesty drive
28 July 2010

GAZA (Reuters) – The Islamist rulers of the Gaza Strip have ordered lingerie shops to display more modesty.

A week after banning women from smoking water pipes in public places, the Hamas-run police force has told stores selling women's underwear to remove scantily-clad mannequins and any posters of racy undergarments.

"These measures have stemmed from complaints and pressure by ordinary people. They have to do with upholding our traditions," police spokesman Ayman Al-Batniji said Wednesday.

Hamas leaders have repeatedly denied any intention to impose Islamic law on the Gaza Strip, home to 1.5 million Palestinians.

But Hamas police have broken up a hip-hop concert in the territory and tried -- unsuccessfully -- to force women lawyers in court and female school students to wear traditional Muslim clothing, a step that drew a public backlash.

Hamas's modesty moves were widely seen by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as attempts to mollify more conservative Islamic factions that have accused the movement of failing to uphold Islamic Sharia.
- - - - - - end of article - - - see original article here - - -

This article needs little comment, although I do point again to the photo as a sign of prosperity or maybe just some petit bourgeois inclinations on the part of the good burghers of Gaza City. There may well be some economic deprivation in Gaza. But is it Israel's fault?

- - - - - - - - -
An Egyptian reporter tells us that Gaza is in the midst of economic good times [here], especially for the wealthy and the nouveau riche [source MEMRI].
And getting back to the Turkish Thug Armada supported by the "free gaza movement" run by Obama's friends and sympathizers [like Jodie Evans, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, etc], here is what some say in Gaza:
"Gaza Health Ministry Officials Complain that Medical Donations Supplied by Aid Convoys Are Past Their Expiry Date or Otherwise Useless" [see video here source MEMRI]. Remarkably, I was told this back in early June by an Israeli army official of the COGAT [the unit that inspects and supervises delivery of supplies to Gaza]. He said that COGAT had inspected the "humanitarian supplies" brought on the Turkish Thug Armada which its ignorant supporters in the West called "the Gaza Freedom Flotilla," and that the medications supplied had either expired back in April or were about to expire in July. Now we are in July, actually near its end. And what do we hear? Gaza health officials echo the words of the COGAT representative.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

What Lurks behind Obama's Pro-Islam, Anti-Israel Policy -- Zbigniew Brzezinski's Chilling Interview with Nouvel Observateur

UPDATINGS at bottom

As soon as I learned that Zbigniew Brzezinski was Obama's mentor, I knew that Obama himself was bad news. Not only was Brzezinski one of his mentors, but Obama sent Zbig off to Damascus before he was even elected to let the Assad gang and Assad Junior himself know that they would have a friend in the White House if Obama were elected president in November.

If you want to know the kind of sinister thinking behind Obama's policy, read this interview with his mentor, Zbig, in the French "leftist" weekly Le Nouvel Observateur [ici en francais]. No doubt that the man is cunning. According to his own admission, it was his policy to lure the Russians into the Afghan War back in 1978-1979. Recall that many Arab Islamic militants eagerly went off to Afghanistan to joyously join the jihad, including one Osama bin Laden who worked with American agencies there. So Brzezinski is cunning. Maybe like a sorcerer's apprentice. But sometimes cleverness causes its own problems. Zbig's egotism may get in the way of common sense or maybe he really likes to see armies slaughtering each other. This is supposedly all done for the sake of American national interests. But can that be said after al-Qa`ida's attack on the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001? Could it have been said after the first Islamist attack on the Twin Towers in early 1993? Zbig would have us believe that he did it all for the good cause of bringing down the Soviet Union. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I suppose that Zbig didn't realize that.
See a translation of the interview below with the original below that. Curious isn't it, that Zbig revealed some important, if relatively obscure truths precisely to a "leftist" publication?:

"Yes, the CIA Went into Afghanistan before the Russians. . . "
interview with Vincent Jauvert

Nouvel Observateur: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, states in his memoirs (1) that the American secret services began to aid the Afghan Mujahidin six months before the Soviet intervention. At that time, you were President Carter's advisor for [national] security affairs. Thus you played a key role in that affair. Do you confirm that?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: (2) Yes, according to the official version of history, the CIA's aid to the mujahidin began some time in 1980, that is, after the Soviet army had invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, kept secret up till now, is quite different. In fact, it was on 3 July 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive about clandestine assistance to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that, in my opinion, this aid was going to entail a military intervention by the Soviets.
NO - Despite that risk, you advocated this "covert action." But maybe you even wished for the Soviets to go to war and were trying to provoke them?
ZB - It wasn't quite that. We did not push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do so.
NO - When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to struggle against a secret United States interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. However, there was a basis of truth. . . You don't regret anything today?
ZB - Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of attracting the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: "We now have the opportunity to give the the USSR its own Vietnam War." In fact, Moscow had to conduct a war intolerable for the regime for almost ten years, a war that brought with it demoralization and finally the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
NO - You don't regret either that you favored Islamist fundamentalism, that you gave weapons, advice to future terrorists?
ZB - What is more important from the viewpoint of world history? The Talibans or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few agitated Islamist fundamentalists or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the Cold War?
NO - "A few agitated [Islamist fundamentalists]." But we say it and repeat it: Islamic fundamentalism today represents a worldwide threat. . . .
ZB - Stupidities! It is necessary, some say, that the West have a global policy in regard to Islamism. That's stupid. There is no worldwide Islamism. Let's look at Islam rationally and not demagogically or emotionally. It is the world's major religion with 1.5 billion faithful. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt or secularized central Asia [secularized by the Soviets--note by Eliyahu]? No more than what unites the Christian countries . . .

[Comments by Eliyahu appear below the French original]
Interview done by Vincent Jauvert

(1) From the Shadows, by Robert Gates (Simon and Schuster).
(2) Zbigniew Brzezinski has just published The Great Chessboard, translation of the French title Le Grand Echiquier (Bayard Editions)
[Note by Eliyahu, this interview was published in Le Nouvel Observateur on 15 January 1998; the books cited were published before that date]

"Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes. . . "
Le Nouvel Observateur. – L’ancien directeur de la CIA Robert Gates l’affirme dans ses Mémoires (1) : les services secrets américains ont commencé à aider les moudjahidine afghans six mois avant l’intervention soviétique. A l’époque, vous étiez le conseiller du président Carter pour les affaires de sécurité ; vous avez donc joué un rôle clé dans cette affaire. Vous confirmez ?
Zbigniew Brzezinski (2). – Oui. Selon la version officielle de l’histoire, l’aide de la CIA aux moudjahidine a débuté courant 1980, c’est-à-dire après que l’armée soviétique eut envahi l’Afghanistan, le 24 décembre 1979. Mais la réalité, gardée secrète jusqu’à présent, est tout autre : c’est en effet le 3 juillet 1979 que le président Carter a signé la première directive sur l’assistance clandestine aux opposants du régime prosoviétique de Kaboul. Et ce jour-là, j’ai écrit une note au président dans laquelle je lui expliquais qu’à mon avis cette aide allait entraîner une intervention militaire des Soviétiques.
N. O. – Malgré ce risque, vous étiez partisan de cette « covert action » [opération clandestine]. Mais peut-être même souhaitiez-vous cette entrée en guerre des Soviétiques et cherchiez-vous à la provoquer ?
Z. Brzezinski. – Ce n’est pas tout à fait cela. Nous n’avons pas poussé les Russes à intervenir, mais nous avons sciemment augmenté la probabilité qu’ils le fassent.
N. O. – Lorsque les Soviétiques ont justifié leur intervention en affirmant qu’ils entendaient lutter contre une ingérence secrète des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan, personne ne les a crus. Pourtant, il y avait un fond de vérité... Vous
ne regrettez rien aujourd’hui?
Z. Brzezinski. – Regretter quoi ? Cette opération secrète était une excellente idée. Elle a eu pour effet d’attirer les Russes dans le piège afghan et vous voulez que je le regrette ? Le jour où les Soviétiques ont officiellement franchi la frontière, j’ai écrit au président Carter, en substance : « Nous avons maintenant l’occasion de donner à l’URSS sa guerre du Vietnam. » De fait, Moscou a dû mener pendant presque dix ans une guerre insupportable pour le régime, un conflit qui a entraîné la démoralisation et finalement l’éclatement de l’empire soviétique.
N. O. – Vous ne regrettez pas non plus d’avoir favorisé l’intégrisme islamiste, d’avoir donné des armes, des conseils à de futurs terroristes ?
Z. Brzezinski. – Qu’est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l’histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l’empire soviétique ? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l’Europe centrale et la fin de
la guerre froide ?
N. O. – « Quelques excités » ? Mais on le dit et on le répète : le fondamentalisme islamique représente aujourd’hui une menace mondiale…
Z. Brzezinski. – Sottises ! Il faudrait, dit-on, que l’Occident ait une politique globale à l’égard de l’islamisme. C’est stupide : il n’y a pas d’islamisme global. Regardons l’islam de manière rationnelle et non démagogique ou émotionnelle. C’est la première religion du monde avec 1,5 milliard de fidèles. Mais qu’y
a-t-il de commun entre l’Arabie Saoudite fondamentaliste, le Maroc modéré, le Pakistan militariste, l’Egypte pro-occidentale ou l’Asie centrale sécularisée ? Rien de plus que ce qui unit les pays de la chrétienté...
Propos recueillis par Vincent Jauvert
(1) « From the Shadows », par Robert Gates, Simon and Schuster.
(2) Zbigniew Brzezinski vient de publier « le Grand
Echiquier », Bayard Editions.
Vincent Jauvert
[Nouvel Observateur, 15 Janvier (January) 1998]

This interview is astounding in its brutal frankness. No maidenly wishes for world peace and good will to men, blah blah. This is the naked Zbig. What does it mean now? Since Zbig is a consultant to the Obama administration, somebody is still listening to his advice and maybe taking some of it seriously to the point of putting it into effect. For instance, Zbig believes in covert action and lying not only to enemies but to the American people. He believes in provocations and in acting through the agency of others, in fact in using Islamic fundamentalists against enemies. Does that mean that the Turkish Thug Armada, which was supported by the American group "Free Gaza Movement" led by a loyal member of the Democratic Party and supporter of Obama, one Jodie Evans, also had support, maybe not so covert from the Obama administration? After all, Evans' women's "peace group," Code Pink, demonstrated often and dramatically against President Bush for his war in Iraq. But Code Pink has been very quiet about the war in Afghanistan which is Obama's war. Still a war, but Obama's war. And that must mean that it's a good war. Not all wars are created equal.

The so-called "Left" and "peace camp" in America still supports Obama. But Obama follows the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski. That advice is not peaceful advice, if we go by Zbig's record of service in the Carter administration. What can we conclude therefore about the "Left" and the "peace camp"??

There are various signs that Obama and his following from Code Pink through Fenton Communications, to J Street to Jeremy Ben Ami, to Lee Hamilton of the Woodrow Wilson Center were jointly working in cooperation with Turkey in favor of the Turkish Thug Armada in order to embaras Israel, possibly creating grounds for a UN Security Council resolution against Israel. Maybe some Euro govts --the UK, France, Germany-- were also along for the ride. What else will Obama, following Zbig's advice, do against Israel?

Getting back to Zbig, would he still say today that he has no regrets over helping the Talibans? Would he still deny that Islamist fundamentalism is a threat in many parts of the world to many countries? Are those Islamists just "a few agitated" fanatics?

When Carl Foreman made the film Doctor Strangelove many years ago, his real-life models for the character of Strangelove were, I believe, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Wernher von Braun. Today Zbig is an advisor to the president.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-13-2011 Peter Wehner sees the disaster of Carter-Brzezinski foreign policy [here]

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, July 03, 2010

The Big Liars Claim "apartheid" in Israel --but Obama demands apartheid against Jews in the Land of Israel

When fascism comes to America, it will
be called anti-fascism
attributed to Huey Long

While the Big Liars, such as Jimmy Carter, claim apartheid in Israel, in fact both Carter and his spiritual child in Judeophobia, Barack Hussein Obama, want to impose apartheid on Jews in the Land of Israel. What else can Obama's call on Israel to stop building for Jews in Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria mean?? Obama intends to press this horrendous racist demand on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to Washington in this coming week. Obama's demands in regard to Jews living in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are based on a whole series of lies. Some depend on the falsification of history, others on misrepresentations of international law, as well as on lies about what is actually occurring on the ground.

We have considered the Big Lie of "apartheid" in Israel in previous posts [here&here&here].
Asher Susser too takes up the fraud of "apartheid" in Israel [here] . I understand that Bret Stephens, a correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, has also issued a video denouncing that Big Lie [here].

Nevertheless, the so-called "peace camp" in Israel is manipulated by powerful, wealthy forces in the West and the Arab world and joins in the demands for apartheid to be imposed on Jews in the ancient Jewish homeland. Such was a demonstration in the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter of Jerusalem whence Jews were driven out of their homes by Arab irregulars in December 1947, later recaptured by the Haganah in April 1948 but soon given to Arab forces again by intervention by the British army, later taken over by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, a British-officered and commanded armed force. The Jews of Shimon haTsadiq Quarter were the first people in the country driven out of their homes in the Israeli War of Independence who could not go home after it since their homes were now Arab-occupied. Jews who fled south Tel Aviv in December 1947 could go home afterward since Jewish forces had defeated the Arab forces in Jaffa and the Arabs' British and mercenary allies [German POWs, Bosnian Muslim SS veterans, etc].

Hence, demonstrating against Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Shimon haTsadiq is not only demanding apartheid against Jews. It is also giving post-facto approval to the original Arab aggression of December 1947 and the Arabs' aim of driving Jews from their homes and the country as a whole. [such a demo took place on 3-8-2010].

The European Union and US policy is racist regarding Jewish settlements. The EU and the US State Dept are endeavoring to impose anti-Jewish apartheid in the Land of Israel. Obama's anti-Jewish policy has to be stopped.

In this regard, the remarks of E. W. Jackson, a black clergyman, are interesting. He recognizes that Obama's policy is anti-Israel and derives from antisemitism:

In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
. . .
The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan - Wright's friend - to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". . . .
The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World, "he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently.
He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation".
Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest - albeit undeclared red - sensibilities. Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long epriod of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.

E. W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and retired attorney

Bishop Jackson clearly understands the anti-Jewish component of Obama's policy. Do enough people understand it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bishop Jackson's beautifully written essay has also been posted on Daniel Pipes' blog and has attracted various comments [here]

Labels: , , , , , ,