US President George W. Bush said following the September 11, 2001 attacks on his nation that from hence forth there could be no distinction between terrorist killers and the people and nation’s who harbor, finance and support them.
If that is the case, then everyone has got to stop treating the Palestinian Arabs with kid gloves!
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mualem Saturday indicated his nation is ready to resume some kind of peace process with Israel. That news got Israeli ultra-leftists, some foreign diplomats, and the mainstream media all excited.
But this purported peace overture must be seen as a deception, just like every one before it.
This time in Egypt. Cairo is banning the most recent editions of popular French and German newspapers for publishing editorials delving into Islam’s violent history and the behavior of its founder, the “prophet” Mohammed.
As reported by Egypt’s state-controlled news agency, MENA:
“The minister of information said that he would not allow any publication that insults the Islamic religion or calls for hatred or contempt of any religion to be distributed inside Egypt.”
This statement will certainly seem odd to anyone familiar with the huge amount of anti-Semitic material published on a regular basis by Egyptian newspapers, radio stations and television networks.
Nor are Christians spared the incitement to hatred.
Now, some will point to the fact that many of the examples of anti-Semitism in the Egyptian media take the form of political criticism of Israel, the Jewish state, making the virulent statements, cartoons and programs perfectly legitimate.
But if that is true, is it not equally legitimate in today’s world to look at, question and even criticize Islam’s violent origins and history? After all, almost all of the major armed conflicts taking place in the world today involve Muslims who claim to be acting on behalf of Allah.
An Islamic studies professor from the Hebrew University got real with participants in last week’s counter-terrorism conference in Herzliya about why true peace between Israel and the Arab world just isn’t ever going to happen.
While Israel and the West do their best to separate religion and the governing of the state, Professor Moshe Sharon explained that in the Middle East, Islam is everything, influences everything, is the basis of everything.
“The root of the problem between us and the Arab world is Islam,” which views Israel’s rebirth as an unacceptable “reversal of history.”
As such, peace agreements between Israel and its Muslim neighbors can never be anything more than “pieces of paper, parts of tactics, strategies” that have “no meaning” so far as true peace is concerned.
Most parents know that when a child gets overly defensive, he is usually guilty of the wrongdoing he is being accused of. The same is certainly true with adults, as well as whole people groups.
Take for instance the Muslim world’s wild overreaction first to the publication of a political cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohammed, then to Pope Benedict XVI’s attempt to emphasize the incompatibility of violence and faith in a university lecture during which he quoted a Byzantine emperor who denounced Mohammed’s calls for jihad.
(Of particular note are the “Palestinians,” who have apparently grown so used to their violent ways being excused that they are openly attacking Christian churches in response to the pope’s remarks.)
If Islam really is tolerant and advocates peace, then why do its practitioners react in such ways over what are in reality very minor provocations? The media and Muslim clerics in this part of the world make a regular habit of denouncing and bad mouthing Jews and Christians, but the result is never widespread Jewish or Christian violence against Muslims.
If you want people to believe that you are tolerant and non-violent, then it is best to not respond to accusations of violence with violence. To do so incidcates that you are in fact guilty.
Contrary to its nature, Amnesty International has released a report accusing a Muslim entity of committing war crimes against the Jewish state.
The “human rights” group rightly says that Hizb’allah’s rocket barrages against northern Israel this summer, which purposely targeted civilian population centers, were in violation of international law. The organization also rightly rejected Hizb’allah’s counter-claim that the rocket attacks were merely reprisals for Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
It will be interesting to see if Amnesty and those affiliated with and influenced by it now seek to prosecute Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and other Hizb’allah officials in the same way they do alleged Israeli war criminals.
I wonder also if Amnesty will read enough of the Geneva Conventions to realize that, while regrettable, the deaths of so many Lebanese at the hands of Israeli forces does not constitute a violation of international law since Hizb’allah was using the civilian population as a shield (Convention IV, Art. 28).
A nation has a right to defend itself against deadly aggression, even if its attacker is hiding behind innocents, and Geneva recognizes that right.
But maybe I am getting ahead of myself. We cannot expect too much balance from Amnesty all at once.
Again, the international media and many Western government are jumping the gun, and mistaking Hamas’ efforts to secure financial aid as an indication the terror group is suddenly ready to abandon its core positions and live in peaceful coexistence with Israel.
The source of the misguided enthusiasm this time is news of an imminent Palestinian Authority unity government, under the terms of which Hamas appears to be indirectly recognizing the Jewish state.
But it is not peace that is driving this move. Rather it is the crushing economic sanctions the PA has been living under since Hamas took over the government in January. Hamas has seen its popularity plummet after being unable to pay over 150,000 PA employees for the past half year. The group is desperate to secure funds. But certainly not desperate enough to renounce the virulent hatred for and brutal violence against Israel that brought it to power.
Asked by Israel’s Army Radio if Hamas’ implicit acceptance of negotiations with Israel signalled an “end to the conflict,” Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad said Tuesday:
“That’s not what we’re saying. We have no problem accepting a state with the 1967 borders.” However, “We are not willing to recognize Israel. This is our country.”
A day earlier, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told Ha’aretz:
“We would like to have the embargo lifted, but we will not surrender to external dictates and we will not agree to sacrifice the interests and rights of the Palestinian people.”
The left-wing Israeli newspaper also noted that the draft unity government proposal also provides for Hamas to reject any previous agreements between Israel and the PA that it feels do not “serve Palestinian interests.” And while it does call for a halt to acts of terror inside sovereign Israel, the deal gives a green light for continued violence against Jews living in Judea and Samaria.
Unfortunately, the international community, and in particular the mainstream media, continue to see only what they want to see, rather than listening to what Hamas has to say or actually reading the documents that are purportedly forming the base of future peace and stability.
Excepting the period of Napolean’s reign, French arrogance and naivety regarding their neighbors and the world at large have only brought defeat for that proud nation over the past several hundred years.
And now the French expect the rest of the West to follow their lead when it comes to dealing with global Islamic terror.
Said French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin to the French National Assembly last week:
“Against terrorism, it is not a war that has to be fought, but — as France has done for years — a determined struggle based on constant vigilance and effective cooperation with our partners.”
But those “partners” he speaks of - entities like Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, etc - are the very ones facilitating terrorism! Cooperation with them will only embolden them to continue playing the terror card, even if discreetly.
Villepin went on to absolve the practitioners of terrorism of all guilt by claiming the phenomenon is an alien concept that has attached itself to real crises in order to spur senseless violence.
He then played apologist for Al Qaeda, Hizb’allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc by suggesting those crises were in fact justification for terrorist violence against the party purportedly causing the grievance.
“We will never bring this plague to an end except by also fighting against injustice, violence, against crises.”
But Villepin really took the cake with his concluding statement:
“It is the duty of France and Europe to show that the clash of civilizations is not an inevitability. It is only we — French and Europeans — who bear this wisdom inherited from history.”
Ironically, France, under Emperor Charlemagne, was the first European power to repulse Islam’s long desire to overrun the Christian-dominated continent, in what is and always has been a “clash of civilizations.”
To follow the advice of France’s modern leadership is to play right into the hands of Allah and his followers. In light of the past century of French blunders and defeats, we should know better.
Reading through the news today on the arms embargo Israel and the international community are trying to implement against Hizb’allah, it struck me how naive the world’s relations with the Arab Middle East remain to this day.
Germany has sent a team of border police and customs experts to advise the Lebanese on how to most effectively keep their borders shut to illegal terrorist arms shipments. The very misguided assumption is that Beirut wants to and will deny terrorists such as Hizb’allah the arms they need just as vigorously as Germany, Britain or the US would.
For some reason, the world continues to ignore the fact that a large portion of the Lebanese vote for Hizb’allah in national elections, the group has two ministers in the Cabinet, Lebanon’s president publicly praises Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah as a national hero, and the army openly admits that it views Hizb’allah as a strategic military asset.
Imagine if following the 9/11 attacks on the US the international community decided to take Taliban-controlled Afghanistan at its word that no more arms or funds would reach the Al Qaeda killers in its midst. I doubt that would have been acceptable to most Americans.
Now, Lebanon is a country deeply divided down religious lines, and some sects and religions truly do want Hizb’allah gone. Some even take Israel’s side and openly support the Jewish state.
But those who genuinly oppose terrorism, even against Israel, are most definitely the exception in the Middle East, and are not the majority in Lebanon. Though Hizb’allah is Shi’ite and most of the Arab world is dominated by Sunni Islam, the maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” forms the basis of most relations in this region, and few could care less about a group’s background so long as it is killing Jews and advancing the greater Arab cause.
And so, while the world believes that Hizb’allah’s minority base of direct support in Lebanon will equal success for the embargo, we can expect the terror group to begin taking delivery of Syrian and Iranian arms again in the very near future.
Been writing about Kofi Annan a lot lately, but he just keeps making such ridiculous, two-faced statements that he is practically picking on himself.
So, everyone remembers that when the UN put an end to the recent Israel-Hizb’allah war, part of the deal was that Hizb’allah would be disarmed and no longer capable of threatening Israel.
That was then revised, with the UN saying it could not and would not be the one to disarm Hizb’allah, that Lebanon was responsible for doing so. Beirut, naturally, said it was not going to take the guns out of the hands of a group it views as a strategic military asset.
On Wednesday, Annan looked to further clarify things from his side by stating that any Lebanese armed terrorist organization could only be disarmed by national consensus. (Wonder if he would take the same position if a well-armed murderous group like Hizb’allah was operating out of, say, England or Germany or Italy, and attacking neighboring states?)
Anyway, where Annan’s hypocrisy makes itself evident here is in the fact that he expects Israel to comply with UN dictates, regardless of national consensus. In Israel, I guarantee a majority of the population - and a large majority at that - was for continuing the war a little longer and crushing Hizb’allah. And I would wager they are now for maintaining the blockade on Lebanon as long as necessary to ensure their abducted troops are returned and Hizb’allah is unable to replenish its arsenal.
But who cares about Israeli national consensus? Apparently not Annan.
