Intro to ‘What Occupation?’
John R. Houk
© February 8, 2013
Westerners are beginning a resurgence of Jew-hatred which is being expressed today in the support of Islamic nations because most of the oil producing nations of the world is Muslim. The narrative of Muslim dominated nations is that Israel existence came to be at the expense of Muslim Arabs that lived there before European Jews began to immigrate back to the Land of their God-given heritage.
Thus Westerners – especially Europeans – are believing the lie that all economic woe is due to Muslim Jew-hatred thus the petroleum economy is a dagger to oil-blood that ultimately fuels the global economy. Muslims have been winning the propaganda war making the nation Israel – you have to use a magnifying glass to view Israel on a global map – the villain of all that ails the world. The most common lie today is that the Israeli government is on par with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Hitler successfully murdered twelve million people in a racist attempt to cleanse German dominated area of the gene pool that pollutes the so-called Aryan race of Germans. Nearly SIX MILLION of those ethnically cleansed people were European Jews. The propaganda is this miniscule Israel does not have the right to exist coupled with the bad logic that the Land Israel won back in 1967 is occupied land with those Muslims being treated like Hitler’s Jews.
The propaganda is a load pig oil and Efraim Karsh writing for Think-Israel has the factual statistics to prove it.
By Efraim Karsh
Alert sent: Feb 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza.
No term has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than “occupation.” For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel’s supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel’s allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.
For most Western observers, the term “occupation” describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of “occupations” dating back to the very creation of Israel on “stolen” land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London’s Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled “Occupied Palestine.” That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian “right of return” that is meant to reverse the effects of the “1948 occupation” — i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.
Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel’s actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today’s terrorist attacks were “what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people” — a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.
Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 “occupations.” “I come to you today with a heavy heart,” she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, “leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe].”
“In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population … On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.”
This original “occupation” — that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel — was later extended, in Ashrawi’s narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:
“Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.”
Taken together, the charges against Israel’s various “occupations” represent — and are plainly intended to be — a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.
In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area’s inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League’s successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.
The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination — an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state’s midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today — namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).
As is well known, the implementation of the UN’s partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region’s Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”
This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, “it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed.” A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that “the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt.”
The British proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank — which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of “land for peace” as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers — Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity “for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” — a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.
At this time — we are speaking of the late 1960′s — Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. “Moderate” Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez al Assad openly referred to Palestine as “not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria”; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.
Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom’s economic, political, and social structures.
For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.
What, then, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most “varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution” ever devised by the human mind?
At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel’s control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat’s PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO’s support for Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980′s.
Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as “systematic oppression” is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this “occupation” did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel’s success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli-Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs’ “final round” with Israel.
Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.
Israel’s restraint in this sphere — which turned out to be desperately misguided — is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli “oppression.” At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.
In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.
During the 1970′s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world — ahead of such “wonders” as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan’s $1,050, Egypt’s $600, Turkey’s $1,630, and Tunisia’s $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria’s, more than four times Yemen’s, and 10 percent higher than Jordan’s (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.
Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.
No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians’ standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.
Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980′s, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990′s, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.
All this, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel’s hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of pro-PLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: “It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don’t build arms factories with it.” Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.
Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel’s administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel’s counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little “armed resistance,” and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960′s, then from Lebanon.
In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO’s largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that “there is no difference between inside and outside.” But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO’s influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged.
But these things were not to be. By the mid1970′s, the PLO had made itself into the “sole representative of the Palestinian people,” and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960′s — well before the Six-Day war — to pursue its “revolution until victory,” that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.
By the mid-1990′s, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli “peace partner.” At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly.
But what did all this have to do with Israel’s “occupation”? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.
By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat’s abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank’s populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.
The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank’s overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank’s 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained “overriding responsibility for security.” Some two percent of the West Bank’s population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains “functional jurisdiction.”
In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.
If the stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo “peace process” but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent.
Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu’s election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu’s three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres’s term.
There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment.
The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years.
Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat’s response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings — murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000.
In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that “peace” agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel’s most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place.
There are limits to Israel’s ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership.
It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians’ rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring (sic) Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of “inhuman occupation” with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.
Efraim Karsh is a professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, and editor of the Middle East Quarterly published by the Middle East Forum. This article was published in the 114 No. 1 July-August 2002 issue of Commentary Magazine (www.commentary.com). The present reprint is taken from the Aish.com reprinting of August 2002, which is archived at http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48898917.html
SlantRight Editor: Here are some excerpts from the Think-Israel homepage. I am not sure how often Think-Israel updates its homepage so I am posting some of the info here for posterity.
We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam.
Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. Muslims are involved in 25 of some 30 conflicts going on in the world: in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia (2 provinces), Kashmir, Kazakastan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Russia-Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
Doesn’t this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.
“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.) The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasir Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian “peoplehood” is a fraud; Read This (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw).
“It should be remembered that in 1918, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were handed more than 5,000,000 square miles to divvy up and 99% was given to the Arabs to create countries that did not exist previously. Less than 1% was given as a Mandate for the re-establishment of a state for the Jews on both banks of the Jordan River. In 1921, to appease the Arabs once again, another three quarters of that less than 1% was given to a fictitious state called Trans-Jordan.” (Jack Berger, May 31, 2004.)
The total for all the 22 Arab League countries is 6,145,389 square miles (SM). By comparison, all 50 states of the United States have a total of 3,787,318 SM. Israel has 8,463 SM, about one-sixth of that of the State of Michigan. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Muslim but not Arab and are not included.
World Arab population: 300 million; World Jewish population: 13.6 million; Israel’s Jewish population: 5.4 million. (Dr. Wilbert Simkovitz)
http://dehai.org/archives/dehai_news_archive/ apr04/0223.htmldehai.org/archives/ dehai_news_archive/apr04/0223.html [SlantRight Editor: I could not find a combination in which this link works. If you wish to play with it perhaps you can start HERE]
“… during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people. They [Palestinian arabs] remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the “right of return” to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist.” (Noam Bedein, Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.)
Some 900,000 Jews left behind $300 billion in assets when they were forced to flee for their lives from the Arab countries in the 1940s. They hold deeds for five times Israel’s size. (Independent Media Centre, Winnipeg)
Re Israel’s irrevocable ownership of Israel, Golan, Samaria, Judea and Gaza: “Nothing that Israel’s legal system says can change the facts that: (1) the legal binding document is the Mandate of the League of Nations and (2) the obligations of the Mandate are valid in perpetuity.” (Professor Julius Stone)
“By 1920 the Ottoman Empire had exercised undisputed sovereignty over Palestine for 400 years. In Article 95 of the treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was transferred to England in trust for a national homeland for the jews. The local Arabs had never exercised sovereignty over Palestine and so they lost nothing. Their rights were fully protected by a provisio in the grant: ‘…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…’ The proviso has been fully observed by the Israelis. Since 1950 the Arabs have built some 261 new settlements in Judea and Samaria — more than twice as many as the Jews, but you never hear of them. They fill them with Arabs from Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan and by the grace of God they become Palestinians. Allahu Akbar! The Arabs call Judea “the West Bank’ because they would look silly claiming that Jews are illegally living in Judea.” (Comment by Wallace Brand on Martin Peretz “Narrative Dissonance” The New Republic, July 1, 2009)
Read More Quotes Here
STEPS TO CARRY OUT THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
Allowing the Arabs and their European friends to set the agenda, Israel has pursued a useless peace policy, bending over backwards to persuade the Arabs to become genuine peace partners. It has brought them nothing but grief, ever more dead Israelis and more acts of terror against more of their citizens. The world hasn’t appreciated that Israel has jeopardized the safety of its own citizens to reduce harm to the Arabs. Instead, the world demands Israel do more “for peace” while asking nothing of the Arabs. How does Israel get back on the right track of making the safety of its own citizens its priority?
§ The first step is to understand that ALL of Mandated Palestine belongs to Israel and was authorized by the same international authority that gave the other 99.99% of the Middle East to the Arabs.
§ The second step is to recognize that the peace process is a scam to deprive Israel of its land. As Efraim Karsh points out, “Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza.”
§ The third is to stop going down the wrong road and, as Caroline Glick recommends, change current Israeli policy. Israel needs to stop being an enabler that gives the Arabs immunity while they work to destroy Israel.
§ More and more Israelis are considering annexing Samaria and Judea officially and putting all of the Territories under Israeli law. See “On Reclaiming Jewish Land” here, including Hausman’s article, “Reclaim Jewish Land; Reject The Two-State Solution” here.
§ Others, Think-Israel included, believe annexation is insufficient. Israel will sooner or later be confronted by a choice that can be simply stated this way: Keep The Land And Expel The Arabs — OR — Keep The Arabs And Lose The Land. Phrased thus, the solution becomes obvious. Just as the Jews were forced from the Arab countries, it is time for the second phase of this population exchange, moving the local Arabs to some part of the vast land area controlled by the Arabs. This would be an upgrade. They would have more space while living in the same environment, life style and culture they are accustomed to having. It would allow them — and this includes all the Arab refugees now scattered in the different Arab countries — the ability to govern themselves. Or carry on their way of death, but only against each other. Their choice.
This set of papers lay out the first steps of a policy based on reality. At the very least, it protects the character of the Jewish state.
This is Additional Material on San Remo and Israel’s ownership of Mandated Palestine:
“The San Remo Mandate” here.
Interview with Howard Grief in Norway March 21, 2011 on “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under international Law.”
Part 1 is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zkjC7tNOrI
Part 2 is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_hM8kbfc
Another set of videos interviewing Howard Grief are at:
Yoram Shifftan has written a series of articles on Israel’s ownership of Mandated Palestine by an irrevocable trust to the Jewish people. See e.g., here, here, and here. See also inter alia: Wallace Edward Brand, “Israeli Sovereignty over Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria,” here; “A Landmark Work” by William Mehlman here; Michael C. Duke, “Jerusalem: Our Redeemable Right” here; Ted Belman, “Summary Of Israel’s Legal Rights To Judea And Samaria,” here.
In the box above, google san remo, league of nations, irrevocable trust, mandated palestine, Israel’s legal right for a more complete selection of relevant articles on Think-Israel.
John R. Houk
© October 10, 2012
Here is some interesting information about Innocence of Muslims – The anti-Mohammed movie made in the USA and originally credited as the reason for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith.
Walid Shoebat has developed a Conspiracy Theory That has the number one person behind Innocence of Muslims (whatever his real name is) was set up by Muslim Brotherhood people to instigate Muslim-hate riots. Talk about incitement, right?
My thoughts on the movie: This is a dopey production that looks created in a garage and a back yard. I know this will upset the politically correct Left, Muslim Apologists and Muslims brainwashed about the perfection of Mohammed; nonetheless the dialogue can’t be taken seriously hence I see a parody of the darker information about Mohammed that can actually be found in the Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam.
I am going to start out with a local California PBS news report on the mock Mohammed movie producer and then follow that with Walid Shoebat’s thoughts.
LA County man behind anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” due in court today
A Los Angeles County man behind the anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East is expected to appear in federal court today. A Los Angeles judge is expected to ask Mark Basseley Youssef whether he violated his probation for a 2010 bank fraud conviction.
Federal prosecutors argue that the 55-year-old had eight probation violations, including lying to his probation officer and using aliases. If Youssef denies those allegations, the judge is expected to schedule an evidentiary hearing to determine if he violated the terms of his release from prison.
Federal authorities say Youssef – a Coptic Christian who also went by the name Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – was behind the film “Innocence of Muslims.” The movie, which mocked Muslims and the prophet Muhammad, led to violence in the Middle East, killing dozens.
Read court documents explaining why prosecutors requested Youssef’s detention and the judge’s reasons for holding him:
Exclusive: ‘Innocence of Muslims’… a Game of Predators and Scapegoats
Posted by Admin
By Walid Shoebat
OCTOBER 5, 2012
The Innocence of Muslims and the spark of an Islamic revolution can be linked to a handful of culprits. The mystery is unlocked when we review the original YouTube page of one named Sam Bacile (the same name attributed to the filmmaker at one time). Bacile forgot to cover his tracks, leaving two links to three very crucial videos. On the “Feed” tab are two of those videos.
One features a Muslim named Wisam Abdul Waris, uploaded to YouTube on September 9th (linked from the Bacile page no later than September 10th). Wisam’s video was uploaded to Bacile’s page because Bacile commented on the video. Yet, when one attempts to view the comments, all have been scrubbed and the comment feature disabled, though the comment allegedly made by Sam Bacile appears on the “Feed” tab, just above the video.
The second video on the Sam Bacile “Feed” tab is none other Nader Bakkar, from as far back as May of 2012. This video was added to Bacile’s YouTube page as a “Favorite” about one week prior to the embassy attack in Cairo on 9/11.
The third video is on the “Likes” tab of the Sam Bacile YouTube page. It consists of an interview with an English speaking western woman who converted to Islam.
Why would a supposed Christian filmmaker “like” this video?
Who are these two named Wisam Abdul Waris and Nader Bakkar?
Waris and Bakkar, the two main interests on Sam Bacile’s YouTube channel, were the two men we identified back on September 13th as being the two primary culprits behind the Cairo riots on 9/11.
These two have been conspicuously absent, all along, from all western media narratives. For example, days after the attacks in Egypt and Libya, Reuters reported an incomplete narrative that the “flashpoint” of the violence was when Sheikh Khalid Abdallah on Al-Nas TV in Egypt aired portions of the film Innocence of Muslims.
The clip Reuters is referring to (uploaded September 9th) was a TV interview on al-Nas, where Sheikh Khalid Abdallah interviewed an activist named Mohammad Hamdy, who was engaged in a blatant form of guilt by association, creating a link between the Copts in Egypt and the Copts in the Diaspora. He blamed all Copts worldwide, not just the ones involved in the film.
Then came these two on September 9th, Wisam Abdul Waris, a Salafist who announced the formation of a new organization, the Coalition of Dar al-Hekma, an activist group wanting to enforce blasphemy laws worldwide and especially in the West. Nader Bakkar was the head of the Nour Salafist party, who gladly announced his new membership in the coalition on the day these two condemned the film.
Contrary to what Reuters reported, what caused the riots was when Waris called in to Khalid to promote them. Khalid simply asked for the date and accepted the invitation. The details and evidence of how the riots erupted by these two was explained here. The rest is history.
The conclusion is that all evidence reveals a small circle of predators—the filmmaker and two individuals prominently displayed on the Sam Bacile YouTube channel.
Wisam and Bakkar planned and executed the riots.
But this is not the rest of the story.
These predators wanted scapegoats. Arab media continues to look for someone to blame for Innocence of Muslims. Al-Ahram, the most prominent newspaper out of Egypt—and a litany of other Arab media, ignores these predators and insists that three Copts are to blame:
Fingers still point to the three names who make up the sides of the dark triangle behind the film…
…says al-Ahram newspaper, adding that…
One of the most important sides of this triangle is Father Zakaria Boutros.
Boutros’s crime was that he was involved in al-Hayat, a ministry in which he openly debates Islamic doctrine. His critique of Islam earned him the title as the most hated man in Egypt.
The other most wanted, according to Al-Ahram, was “Joseph Nasrallah”, whom it identifies as the…
…owner of a TV program called The Way and runs a media organization and Christian charity in Los Angeles, called Media for Christ.
When it came to Nasrallah, Al-Ahram reported…
200 people besieged his family’s home in Giza to kill his mother and his two brothers.
While thugs can pinpoint Nasrallah’s family in Egypt, it remains a mystery that no one was able to pinpoint the relatives of scapegoat number three – the filmmaker himself – despite his statements that the funding for the film came from his wife’s family in Egypt.
Several predatory Islamic websites have a history of posting details that included photos of homes, documents, mapping and even home loan documents while asking other Muslims to help hunt down activist Copts living in the Diaspora.
The Copts are the best scapegoats to set up for serious trouble.
While the filmmaker is put on trial in the United States, the system gives free reign to terrorists and predators who are not simply crying ‘fire’ in a theatre; they are calling first to burn it.
There is apparently no illegality in disseminating information that solicits the murder of Copts who are blamed, regardless of facts. Flimsy evidence is used to make any case that these critiques of Islam deserve execution via mob rule.
Al-Ahram even recognizes that a man by the name of “Ahmed Hamdy” was behind Innocence of Muslims, but suddenly this Ahmed Hamdy must be a Copt disguised as Muslim. Why? Al-Ahram explains:
During this period, Zakaria Boutros created a Paltalk chat room on the Internet in 2002 to raise suspicions against Islam and the Koran, which sparked outrage in Egypt and the Muslim world. This prompted Pope Shenouda to issue a decision to excommunicate him from the church. A revelation from a human rights activist [Khalid al-Masri] stated: ‘One day a person claiming to be a Muslim named Ahmed Hamdy entered Zakaria Boutros’ Paltalk room and requested a debate with Zakaria in front of all visitors… Zakaria Boutros agreed and this person, who claims to be Ahmed Hamdy declared his conversion publicly to Christianity before all visitors in the room.
According to al-Masri, this Ahmed Hamdy is the filmmaker:
After the uproar caused by Nakoula’s film, he [Nakoula] contacted the American Radio Sawa and what we found as researchers at the National Center was that the voice in the interview with Radio Sawa was the same voice of Ahmed Hamdy who debated Zakaria Boutros in his Paltalk room. This is the same person who claimed during his contact with the American Associated Press that he was an Israeli Jew named Sam Basile and what followed was that the Agency [Associated Press] tracked his phone to discover his name was Nakoula Basile Nakoula, revealed his criminal record, and found the case of bank fraud in which he was sentenced, fined $750,000 dollars, and not permitted to use the Internet for five years.
Al-Masri stated that the voice compared from that dialogue with Boutros in 2002 was matched to the same voice of the man who claims to be Nakoula during his interview with Sawa in September of 2012.
Ahmed Hamdy was just a pseudonym and was not a Muslim; he was a Copt from the Diaspora named Elijah Basile, also known as Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, director and writer of the screenplay [Innocence of Muslims].
Though no one was able to confirm which of the names the filmmaker used is his real name or even what his real name is, this revelation of a switch from Ahmed Hamdy to Nakoula only came after the film became known. Court documents do reveal that the filmmaker used the name Ahmed Hamdy extensively while he was embezzling money with my first cousin, Eiad Salameh and was captured during Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing that was linked to money going to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization.
While no evidence has yet surfaced that pinpoints the true name or origin of the man behind Innocence of Muslims, the media continues the narrative that a religious Copt is solely responsible for the whole mess and oh, by the way, that Copt is now in jail.
The BBC reported that the filmmaker’s supposed church membership in the U.S. isn’t as it has been portrayed, quoting the Bishop of the Coptic Diocese of Los Angeles as saying the filmmaker “disappears for many months” and “…is not a regular member.”
Why he sporadically visited a Coptic church remains unknown. Sawa (Arab radio) aired an interview in which the alleged filmmaker stated that he is not even interested in Christianity, adding that some day he would treat Christianity and Judaism the same way he did in the Innocence of Muslims. He made clear that he is a critic of all religions and that his favorite critic was Salman Rushdi. “What happened to the Iranian Salman Rushdi is what inspired me,” stated the filmmaker to the Arabic radio Sawa.
Why then would the anti-religion filmmaker work in Zakaria Boutros’ ministry? We were even able to obtain an old photo never published in any western media. The man on the far left is identified as the filmmaker; Boutros is seen standing in the center (click on image to enlarge).
Sam Bacile-Ahmed Hamdy-Nakoula Basile Nakoula-Elijah Basile-Mark Basseley Youssef or whoever is Left and Zakaria Boutros is center
We reached out to Boutros in order to help determine if this person is Ahmed Hamdy, whom Boutros supposedly interviewed at his Paltalk in 2002. Is this the man who claimed to have converted from Islam to Christianity and if so, was Boutros simply set up?
Unfortunately, Zakaria has not responded to our requests.
It’s worth noting that several pseudonyms the filmmaker was using belong to real people who do exist. I was able to find one named Sobhy Bushra, a former associate of Boutros who runs a ministry and travels to the Holy Land. Bushra stated that he knew everyone, including my cousin Eiad Salameh. He stated that he was simply ministering to the filmmaker in the Los Angeles area and had attempted to help him mend his ways. He stated that the filmmaker said he was Copt who used the name Nakoula Bacile Yousef Nakoula from Bahira in Egypt. I had asked him about Eiad Salameh and he stated that Eiad traveled from Bethlehem to meet with Bushra in Jerusalem recently. Eiad has been connecting to the Copts for years of scheming in California.
Whether the filmmaker was Copt or Muslim in origin makes little difference. It is not uncommon for Islamists to find, use and recruit bad apples. It is easy to find so-called secular Christians who could care less about the Christian faith, or who disagree with Christian support for Israel and even use their hatred to advance terrorist causes. Many Copts are no lovers of Israel. Al-Hayat, where Boutros served, has a disdain for Israel.
Hilarion Capucci, a Catholic archbishop is a case-in-point. While Capucci hated Israel, he was a friend of Eiad Salameh. Capucci was found guilty of terrorism against the State of Israel for smuggling explosives in 1974. George Habash, a secular Christian, started the Popular Front to Liberate Palestine (PFLP), which recruits both secular Christian and Muslim terrorists. Remember, the filmmaker was apprehended during Operation Mountain Express, which was linked to drug dealings involving Hezbollah.
While terror supporters were behind the unrest, the Arab world hones in on religious Copts whether they are critics of Islam or not, or even perhaps duped by someone who had intentions to do them harm. The sad part is that many in the West agree with them. Copts, like Jews, make excellent scapegoats.
The rest of the story might be told if some Copts came forward to tell it.
Mohammed Film Maker and Islamist Conspiracy
John R. Houk
© October 10, 2012
LA County man behind anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” due in court today
© 2012 Southern California Public Radio
Exclusive: ‘Innocence of Muslims’… a Game of Predators and Scapegoats
© 2012 Walid Shoebat. All Rights Reserved.
John R. Houk
© September 22, 2012
Caroline Glick has some awesome insight on Obama’s Foreign Policy in relation to Egyptian animus toward the USA.
She begins by pointing out the Islamic hatred for American Free Speech. This Egyptian hatred of America is evidenced by Egypt placing arrest warrants against the makers of the Mohammed Movie and anyone associated with promoting the movie.
Just as a sidebar: Egypt asking the U.S. government to honor the arrest warrants for something that is protected by the First Amendment should give more importance to the grassroots movement of enacting American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). – End of sidebar
Glick points out that Egyptian Clerics – like from the Muslim Brotherhood – are calling for an end of attacks on U.S. Embassies; however call for Muslims to rise up in the USA to murder anyone connected to the Mohammed Movie.
Glick points out that the Obama Administration has been consistent in an appeasement foreign policy by using an apologetic strategy of courting friendship with Muslim nations and most notoriously the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.
Glick rounds out her criticism of President Barack Hussein Obama by pointing out his Administration is attempting to take the voters’ eyes off the foreign policy failure by dredging memories of the Neocons of the old Bush Administration yet only and oddly falling into the myth that Neocons are Jewish. Hence, without using anti-Semitic words the Obama Administration is using antisemitism to separate Obama policies as the source of Muslim rage against Americans.
This is a good read!
Obama’s dangerous consistency
By Caroline Glick
September 21, 2012, 9:39 AM
On Tuesday, Egypt’s chief prosecutor issued arrest warrants against eight US citizens.
Their purported crimes relate either to their reported involvement in the production of the Internet movie critical of Islam that has received so much attention over the past 10 days, or to other alleged anti-Islamic activities.
One of the US citizens indicted is a woman who converted from Islam to Christianity.
According to the Associated Press, Egypt’s general prosecution issued a statement announcing that the eight US citizens have been indicted on charges of insulting and publicly attacking Islam, spreading false information, and harming Egyptian national unity.
The statement stipulated that they could face the death penalty if convicted.
The AP write-up of the story quoted Mamdouh Ismail, a Salafi attorney who praised the prosecution’s move. He claimed it would deter others from exercising their right to free expression in regards to Islam. As he put it, the prosecutions will “set a deterrent for them and anyone else who may fall into this.” That is, they will deter others from saying anything critical about Islam.
This desire to intimidate free people into silence on Islam is clearly the goal the heads of the Muslim Brotherhood seek to achieve through their protests of the anti-Islamic movie. This was the message of Muslim Brotherhood chief Yussuf Qaradawi. Three days after the anti-American assaults began on the anniversary of the September 11 jihadist attacks on America, Qaradawi gave a sermon on Qatar television, translated by MEMRI.
Qaradawi struck a moderate tone. He called on his followers to stop rioting against the US. Rather than attack the US, Qaradawi urged his Muslim audience to insist that the US place prohibitions on the free speech rights of American citizens by outlawing criticism of Islam – just as the Europeans have done in recent years in the face of Islamic terror and intimidation.
In his words, “We say to the US: You must take a strong stance and try to confront this extremism like the Europeans do. This [anti-Islamic film] is not art. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is nothing but curses and insults. Does the freedom to curse and insult constitute freedom of speech?”
Both the actions of the Egyptian prosecution and Qaradawi’s sermon prove incontrovertibly that the two policies the US has adopted since September 11, 2001, to contend with Muslim hatred for the US have failed. The neoconservative policy of supporting the democratization of Muslim societies adopted by President Barack Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush has failed. And the appeasement policy adopted by Obama has also failed.
Bush’s democratization policy claimed that the reason the Muslim world had become a hotbed for anti-Americanism and terror was that the Muslim world was not governed by democratic regimes. Once the peoples of the Muslim world were allowed to be free, and to freely elect their governments, the neoconservatives proclaimed, they would abandon their hatred of America.
As a consequence of this belief, when the anti-regime protests against the authoritarian Mubarak regime began in January 2011, the neoconservatives were outspoken supporters of the overthrow of then-president Hosni Mubarak, despite the fact that he had been the US’s key ally in the Arab world for three decades. They supported the political process that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power. They supported the process despite the fact that Qaradawi is the most influential cleric in Egypt. They supported it despite the fact that just days after Mubarak was ousted from power, Qaradawi arrived at Cairo’s Tahrir Square and before an audience of two million followers, he called for the invasion of Israel and the conquest of Jerusalem.
In the event, the Egyptian people voted for Qaradawi’s Muslim Brotherhood and for the Salafi party. The distinction between the two parties is that Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are willing to resort to both violent and nonviolent ways to dominate the world in the name of Islam. The Salafis abjure nonviolence. So while Qaradawi called for the riots to end in order to convince the Americans to criminalize criticism of Islam, his Salafi counterparts called for the murder of everyone involved in producing the anti-Islamic film.
For instance, Salafi cleric Ahmad Fouad Ashoush issued a fatwa on Islamic websites last weekend calling for American and European Muslims to murder those involved with the movie. His religious ruling was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group on Monday.
Ashoush wrote, “Those bastards who did this film are belligerent disbelievers. I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film.
“So, hurry, hurry, O Muslim youth in America and Europe, and teach those filthy lowly ones a lesson that all the monkeys and pigs in America and Europe will understand. May Allah guide you and grant you success.”
These are the voices of democratic Egypt. The government, which has indicted American citizens on capital charges for exercising their most fundamental right as Americans, is a loyal representative of the sentiments of the Egyptian people who freely elected it. The Salafi preacher is a loyal representative of the segment of the Egyptian people that made the Salafi party the second largest in the Egyptian parliament. Qaradawi’s call for the abolition of freedom of speech in America – as has happened in Europe – and to ban all criticism of Islam is subscribed to by millions and millions of Muslims worldwide who consider him one of the leading Sunni clerics in the world.
Free elections in Egypt have empowered the Egyptian people to use the organs of governance to advance their hatred of America. Their hatred has been empowered, and legitimized, not diminished as the neoconservatives had hoped.
The behavior of the Egyptian government, Qaradawi and the Salafis also makes clear that Obama’s policy of appeasing the Muslim world has failed completely. Whereas Bush believed the source of Muslim hatred was their political oppression at the hands of their regimes, Obama has blamed their rage and hatred on America’s supposed misdeeds.
By changing the way America treats the Muslim world, Obama believes he can end their hatred of America. To this end, he has reached out to the most anti-American forces and regimes in the region and spurned pro-American regimes and political forces.
When Obama’s policies are recognized as driven by appeasement, the seeming inconsistency of his war against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi on the one hand, and his passivity in the face of the anti-regime uprising in Iran in 2009 and the Syrian uprising against the Assad regime today makes sense. Gaddafi was not a threat to the US, so he was unworthy of protection. The mullahs in Iran and Assad are foes of the US. So they deserve protection. Obama has assiduously courted the Muslim Brotherhood from the outset of his presidency.
The official and unofficial Egyptian exploitation of the Internet film as a means to intimidate and attack the US into disavowing its core principles is proof that Obama’s theory of the source of Muslim rage is wrong. They do not hate America because of what the US government does. They hate America because of what America is. And it is because of this that since September 11, the rationale for Obama’s foreign policy has disintegrated.
Rather than accept this basic truth and defend the American way of life, Obama has doubled down in the only way now available to him. He, his administration, his campaign and his supporters in the media have responded to the collapse of the foundations of his foreign policy by resorting to the sort of actions they accused George W. Bush, his administration and supporters of taking. They have responded with a campaign of political oppression and nativist bigotry directed against their political opponents.
Late last Friday night, law enforcement officers descended on the California home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man who made the film that the Muslims of the newly free Arab lands find so offensive. Nakoula was questioned by federal authorities and later released. His arrest was photographed. The image of a dozen officers arresting an unarmed man for making a movie was broadcast worldwide within moments.
Beyond persecuting an independent filmmaker, the White House requested that YouTube block access to it. YouTube – owned by Google – has so far rejected the White House’s request.
The Obama administration’s abetment of bigoted nativism to silence criticism of its substantively indefensible foreign policy was on prominent display last Sunday. Obama’s campaign endorsed an anti-Semitic screed published by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.
In her column, titled, “Neocons slither back,” Dowd wrote that Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are mere puppets controlled by “neocon puppet master, Dan Senor.”
Neocon is a popular code for Jewish. It was so identified by Dowd’s Times’ colleague David Brooks several years ago.
Dowd said that “the neocons captured” Bush after the September 11 attacks and “Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.”
One telling aspect of Dowd’s assault on Senor as a neoconservative is that he and his boss in the Bush administration, Paul Bremer, were the nemeses of the neoconservatives at the Pentagon. The only thing Senor has in common with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith is that all three men are Jews.
Moreover, Dowd drew a distinction between supposed “neocons” like Senor, and non-Jewish US leaders Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who merely “abetted” the neocons.
So Senor doesn’t share the same ideological worldview as Feith and Wolfowitz but he’s a neocon. And Cheney and Rumsfeld do share the same worldview as Feith and Wolfowitz. And they are not neocons.
The Times’ public editor Andrew Rosenthal dismissed claims that Dowd’s column was anti- Semitic, arguing it couldn’t be since she never said a word about Jews.
The Obama campaign linked to Dowd’s column on its Twitter account with the message, “Why Romney and Ryan’s foreign policy sounds ‘ominously familiar.’” Obama’s campaign’s willingness to direct the public to anti-Semitic screeds against his political opponents is consistent with the administration’s general strategy for defending policies. That strategy involves responding to criticism not with substantive defense of his policies, but with ad hominem attacks against his critics.
His failed economic policies’ critics are attacked as “Wall Street fat cats.” His failed foreign policies’ critics are demonized as ominous neocon puppet masters.
There is a difference between appeasing parties that have been harmed by your actions and appeasing parties that wish your destruction. In the 1970s the US appeased the Philippines by transferring sovereignty over the Clark Air Force Base to the Philippine government. America was still America and the US and the Philippines became friends.
To appease a party that hates your way of life, you must change your way of life. The only way America can appease the Muslim world is for America to cease to be America.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
© 2012 Caroline Glick
It drives me crazy when President Barack Hussein Obama tells the voters that Republicans are out of touch with Americans! BHO has screwed the economy. BHO has screwed the American image with weakness particularly with Muslims that hate our guts. AND BHO has screwed American Foreign Policy with a future agenda of weakening America further by dismembering the American military.
Come on voters! Are we going to continue to believe the BHO lies, smoke and mirrors to deceive us? I say NO!
Let’s do a pre-election notice to BHO and sign this petition that ACT for America is circling about being fed up with Obama’s Foreign Policy choices making us weak and a target for Islamic Supremacism.
A cover-up in Libya?
Sent by ACT for America
Sent: September 18, 2012 11:46 AM
Since our Egyptian and Libyan embassies were attacked we’ve seen a steady stream of statements from the Obama administration, some in Congress, and some in the media and academia, who blame an obscure 14 minute film for the outbreak of the violence.
The Obama administration went so far as to pressure YouTube to take the film down! In a victory for free speech, YouTube refused.
These efforts to blame the film are dangerous and misguided. What’s more, there is growing evidence that the administration is blaming the film in an effort to cover up what really happened in Libya—a planned and coordinated terrorist attack on our consulate that, inexplicably, we were unprepared for.
The Libyan president and numerous intelligence sources dispute the Obama administration’s claims that the Libyan attack was a “spontaneous” mob outburst. These sources insist all the evidence points to a planned terrorist attack.
If this is true, the administration is not only emboldening radical Muslims worldwide with its constant references to the film, it is sending a message to terrorist networks everywhere that it will attempt to cover up for its own mistakes with assaults on free speech.
Then join the nearly 10,000 people who in one day signed our petition, and add your name. We will deliver the petition to the White House and leaders of Congress.
The text of the petition is below. VISIT HERE, add your name, or click on the image above [Editor: That picture thing won't work here - Click the links in this message]. Then FORWARD this to everyone you know!
Let your voice be heard today!!
We’ve Had Enough!!
Since the unjustified assaults on the U.S. embassies in Cairo and Libya, many in the Obama administration, the Congress, the media, and academia, have apologized, blamed or insinuated that a satirical film about Mohammed was the catalyst for all the violence.
We, the undersigned, know better—and we’ve had enough.
We’ve had enough of the Obama administration’s efforts to placate Islamist mobs motivated by ideology, or hatred of America, or just plain thuggery, with its repeated references to this obscure film that prior to September 11, 2012, no one had ever heard of.
We’ve had enough of the Obama administration and some Members of Congress insinuating or even implying that the violence against our embassies would not have occurred had it not been for this “offense” against Islam.
We’ve had enough of those who say a single blog post about an obscure film satirizing Islam is somehow responsible for the violence and anger raging throughout the Muslim world.
We’ve had enough of political leaders who cower in the face of the intimidation and bullying tactics of radical Muslims around the world who can never be appeased enough or accommodated enough.
We’ve had enough of the “establishment media’s” double standard, who defend satirical films and art that offend Christians and Jews as “free speech,” but condemn satire that offends Muslims as “hate speech.”
We’ve had enough of American politicians who fail to see or refuse to see the clear and present threat the Muslim Brotherhood poses to the United States.
We’ve had enough of the message of weakness coming out of Washington when what is required now is a defense of America, a defense of our values, strength, courage and resolve.
We are the silent majority in America.
We don’t riot when offended. We don’t storm embassies, kill ambassadors, or torch government buildings.
And we know that we’ve been here once before.
In 1979, we said “enough” to an economy in shambles, skyrocketing gas prices, and a president whose weakness emboldened Iranian radicals to hold Americans hostage for 444 days.
On November 6th, we will again say “enough,” just as patriotic and responsible Americans have said “enough” in the past.
We will VOTE.
SlantRight Editor: Go HERE to Sign Petition
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
My readers need to read a post from Danny Jeffrey from a few days ago. Danny ties a couple years of writing and predictions that for the most part I do concur. The teaser is the predictions about Obama Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Iran and nuclear war. Keep in mind as I write this, today is the day a bunch of Muslims across the Muslim Maghreb of North Africa, the Caucasus area of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East have attacked American Embassies (or are threatening to attack) and at least one case it resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens stationed in Libya.
In light of these recent events it would behoove all to read Danny Jeffrey’s “The American Brotherhood Versus Israel”.
JRH 9/12/12 (Hat Tip: Facebook Group – 1683 AD)
The American Brotherhood Versus Israel
By Danny Jeffrey
September 6, 2012
I must confess that I am not overly fond of my role as a 21st. Century Cassandra, but can no longer hope that I am mistaken as so many pieces are falling into place that there can be no doubt as to my assumptions being correct. Before proceeding I must acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Frank Gaffney and associates for it is they who first started me down this treacherous path to an understanding of pure evil.
The following is not light reading and if you choose to pursue it be prepared for several hours of study. The reading is not light, nor is the topic for it entails no less than a plan to destroy Israel and launch the world into a nuclear war.
America made a great error in electing a Muslim to the White House, for the most wretched belief to ever take shape on the Planet Earth is now in control of the most powerful nation that mankind has ever seen.
I have spent the last two years following information as it became available and have long believed that Obama is intent on the destruction of Israel and bringing a nuclear holocaust to the human race. Below there is a collection of essays that I have written during that period and projections made with each new discovery, but first I shall begin with today’s events that I have long anticipated. Read them and then follow me into the past where I predicted what is inevitable if Hussein Obama cannot be stopped.
Israel Betrayed by Frank Gaffney Sept. 04, 2012. In this Mister Gaffney points out Obama’s political attacks on Israel, which Mitt Romney described as “throwing Israel under the bus”, and his growing financial and military aid to Islam. Excerpt: “President Obama and his civilian and military subordinates have done just about everything short of a preemptive strike on the Jewish State to prevent the Israelis from trying to neutralize a looming existential threat to their nation.”
The New Gate Keepers This is a recent essay of mine. You need not read it in its entirety as only part of the information is pertinent to this essay. This is the relevant data excerpt. “Hillary also bypasses Congress under a different title than Executive Privilege. You will see the term “Waiver of Congressional Restrictions” used multiple times as she openly breaks our laws. One such waiver allowed her to give 1.5 BILLION Dollars to Egypt. She also uses a waiver to illegally aid the Palestinian Authority and give $170 Million to Hamas and Fatah.” Not wanting to use myself as a reference, the above can be validated in a PDF file of a Congressional letter from Michelle Bachman to the Inspector General.
This from the ally of all of our enemies: The New York Times, writes of us providing Egypt with F16s and components to construct 125 Abrams M1A1 tanks in Egypt. What could be a better deal for the Muslim Brotherhood. This not only strengthens the Muslim Brotherhood’s military, while further endangering Israel, it also puts American labor out of work. If this is not high treason, then I do not know the definition of high treason.
The US has just recently announced that a long planned military exercise with Israel is being scaled back to a minimum use of our resources and those remaining resources are being rerouted to Egypt where they will participate in war games with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, with part of the exercise to be training flights over the Sinai desert where Egyptian tanks are now being deployed disregarding the Camp David accords between pre MB Egypt and Israel. Needless to say, Israel is none too happy with the turn of events.
The latest news report from Israel indicates that Islamic forces are probing for weak points. They should soon be prepared for a major assault which will most assuredly come when Israel attacks the Iranian nuclear sites.
This link from the Gatestone Institute pretty well sounds the death knell for the US and Israel alliance. Obama keeps telling the gullible of America that he supports Israel. Actions speak louder than lies.
I have no doubt that anyone who has made it this far with me can connect the dots in the above news items and realize that Israel is now facing a bleak future. Now, journey with me into my archives where I connected these dots long ago and project them still farther into the future … Warning, you are in for a rough ride.
MY PAST ESSAYS…
Obama Is Selling Israel Out Soon … Published Nov. 2010. Frank Gaffney’s article from two years ago got me started on this Israel saga and then I branched off onto my own research. This first link is a summary of what I learned from him. Those following are what I learned from multiple sources and my own deductions.
The Coming Assault On Israel … Published Apr. 2011. This is one of my most difficult to read as it is so full of links. In spite of this it is still on the top ten of my most read essays. The evidence collected here took weeks to assemble and the links provided tie in all of the major people and groups involved in the plan to destroy Israel. This is where I learned about the Soros funded groups and their involvement in “Responsibility to Protect” which is now UN doctrine. R2P’s first use was on assigning U.S. air power to protect Al Qaeda as they gained control of Libya. Libya was sacrificed to provide a precedent that will be used later to cover Hezbollah and Hamas as they assault Israel. One issue they attempted at the time was seeking a UN resolution declaring Palestine to be a free state. Public and Congressional outcries forced the U.S. to veto the effort. It is soon to be tried again.
Obama … Forcing A Nuclear War Published May 2011. The title speaks for itself. Anyone knowing the facts will conclude that events will inevitably lead to nuclear war. Obama knows this as well as I do, but he and his Islamic allies are unconcerned about it. They have but one focus … Destroy Israel.
The Countdown To War Continues. Published July 2011. This was an extreme danger point that was thankfully delayed. This is when Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney, and Caroline Glick also started projecting nuclear holocaust if events continued unchecked. At this point Palestine becoming a state and the war beginning seemed inevitable. I was but one of many to call on Congress to stop the insanity of a Palestinian state. They did and we dodged the bullet for the moment. I also projected that if Israel is defeated they would launch all of their nuclear devices just before their defeat was inevitable.
The Coming Assault On Israel … Part Two. Published Mar. 2012. At this point things are apparently getting out of hand and we are learning that our military is now subject to International Law i.e.:, The U.N. and NATO. Congress is no longer involved in the matter of war as part of their duties provided by our Constitution.
The Sampson Option … Israel’s Hole Card. Published Mar. 2012. Now the plot thickens as I discover my prediction that Israel would do an all out nuclear assault on Islam and those nations who had betrayed her before suffering defeat. They do have such a plan and it is called “The Samson Option.”
Israel’s Doomsday Scheme. Published June of 2012. Now the word is getting out. Israel does have a doomsday plan in place. If facing destruction they do not plan to face it alone, choosing instead to take along some prime enemies when they fall. Israel intentionally leaked this information as there is NO benefit to having a doomsday device and keeping it secret. The whole purpose of such a plan is for it to act as a deterrent. Unfortunately such a deterrent only works if you are dealing with rational people, and that precludes all of Islam, and their allies in our nation’s capitol.
Well, this pretty well outlines the whole plan. The dots are all connected and if anyone can show me another scenario than what I have outlined here I will certainly breathe a deep sigh of relief, but, there is no other scenario possible. The best argument that anyone could use against my predictions is to say that no one wants nuclear war. That, unfortunately, is not true.
The madmen of Iran actually seek an end to the world in hopes of resurrecting that warlord from long ago. Our leaders, with access to radiation proof bunkers, are unconcerned. China is convinced that it is coming. They are building twenty new cities a year and no one lives there. The West is arguing that China is only involved in a make work program to keep their people working. That is absurd. They are building new cities for the survivors of the coming holocaust. By doing this they will be the only nation in the world with a ready to occupy civilization.
To put all of the above into a nutshell: Obama is weakening America, strengthening Islam, abandoning Israel, and if Israel is defeated the human race will reap the rewards of their hatred of a tiny little state in the homeland of a great people. Some would call that Armageddon.
I’m sixty seven and since Ronald Reagan left office I have watched my country slowly deteriorate as freedoms are lost and the value of our currency dwindles. This has been a slow but steady decline until Barrack Obama entered the White House. I will not refer to this man as President. That is a job that deserves respect and he has earned none at all. I am convinced that were it not for the Tea Party stirring up the public we would now be living under a total dictatorship. He seeks only power and has no loyalty at all to the United States, and as long as he is in office I shall write to any who will read and speak of what he is and what he is doing to this country.
I can’t think of anyone’s toes that are faithful readers of Jeffrey that would feel stepped on. I only wish there were more people writing about the Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt (and elsewhere in the Muslim world). If indeed there is a Coptic Christian genocide it would make the Jewish Holocaust shrink in travesty. What would the West do for Egyptian-Christians?
John R. Houk
© August 17, 2012
Caroline Glick has written an essay that begins with the U.S. Foreign Policy debacle of doing nothing to keep Mao Zedong (Mao Tse Dung) from his Communist conquest of China. Mao wrested control of the Chinese government from the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Chek who ended up fleeing to Formosa (Today’s Taiwan).
Glick compares Mao’s usurpation of power in China to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist President Mohamed Morsi of winning a close Egyptian election. Glick reports that Egyptian military authorities and generals have been fired and replaced with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists. Also Morsi has not called the Egyptian Parliament back (disbanded originally by Egyptian military) which Glick believes gives Morsi the power to write Egypt’s new Constitution. If Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood write the next Egyptian Constitution, this will probably instill dictatorial powers on the new Egyptian President. Glick believes these dictatorial powers will be on a larger scale than the Obama abandoned and deposed Hosni Mubarak’s power.
Glick then properly goes on to criticize Obama’s Foreign Policy of joining Turkey in supporting the Islamist rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now I realize there will be really no difference in Israel-hate and American-hate from which ever Syrian broker eventually stabilizes control of Syria; however deposing Assad would throw a monkey wrench into the Iranian-Syrian military alliance at least for awhile. That actually would be to America’s benefit. Anything that sets Iran back with only a little resource involvement by the US is a plus for America.
If the Sunni-Islamists succeed in taking over Syria the animosity with Iran would only be temporary in my opinion. The one thing that unites and smoothes over the hatred between Sunni and Shia Muslims (Iran is a Shia Theocracy) is a mutual hatred for Jews and Israel.
I suspect if Israel attacks Iranian nuke sites the Sunni regimes of Turkey (Islamist government) and now Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government) might begin to offer at the very least clandestine military aid to Iranian client Hezbollah and the Sunni-Islamist terrorists Hamas. Undoubtedly Hamas would join a Hezbollah attack from the north by making a southern military front against Israel. The Saudi Royal Family hates and fears the militant Shia Iran regime in becoming a regional hegemon. I believe it is a pretty good guess that the Wahhabi Clerics in Saudi Arabia would fully support the elimination of Israel’s existence. If the Saudi Royal Family does not want its own civil war it would probably support yet another invasion of Israel while working clandestinely with the USA to help thwart Iranian influence.
Israel’s existence is in volatile times. A nuclear armed Iran would be suicide for Israel. Israel must take the risk of regional war to stop the formation of nuclear warheads that can be placed on Iranian missiles that can easily reach Israel. If a regional war breaks out Israel would have to be harsh on the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians just to survive. I sense a President like Obama would condemn Israel for such self-preservation harshness against Palestinian Authority Arabs and Hamas governed Gaza Arabs. An Obama-like President might even desire to punish Israel by not helping the Jewish State to survive.
YOU DO KNOW what would happen to Jews in a defeated Israel, right? There would be a SECOND Holocaust that would either rival the Hitler-Nazi Holocaust or even exceed those dimensions of butchery.
American voters need to vote for a President that is Pro-Israel and willing to stand with Israel even if doing so is not Politically Correct to the rest of the Western World. Currently that man is GOP Nominee Mitt Romney. Standing with Israel will bring the blessings of God Almighty for blessing God’s Chosen People.
I am not Jewish; nonetheless I and other Biblical Christians support Israel because the Jewish State’s existence is prophetic. Eventually Jesus Himself will Return and the Jews will comprehend He is their Messiah as much as He is the Christian Messiah (i.e. the Christ) of Christian Believers looking for the fulfillment of God’s plans for His Creation. Salvation is of the Jews.
Yup, you pegged me: I am a Christian Zionist (SA Jewish Virtual Library). The kind of person Leftists, Muslims and erstwhile so-called Progressive Christians dislike immensely. Unfortunately many Liberal and Observant Jews distrust the motivation of Christian Zionists.
[SlantRight Editor Side Note: The distrust is in the Christian Zionist motivation to be a friend of Israel. Jews are not real hip to Christian proselytizing because of the unscriptural and horrid treatment Jews received at the hands of Christians taught to hate Jews as Christ-killers. The accusation was unfair in Christian history and it is unfair now.
For one thing polytheistic Romans were goaded into Crucifying Christ at the behest of power-station minded Jewish leadership (viz. the Sanhedrin monopolized by Pharisees but dominated by Greek mindset Sadducees).]
Well that is my two-cents. The analysis of Israel’s predicament and U.S. Foreign Policy is much more eloquently provided by Caroline Glick. You should READ IT.
Unlike White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and the BBC listing Capital Cities of Olympic participating nations, Mitt Romney is not afraid to speak the truth; viz. that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.
JRH 7/31/12 (Hat Tip: Jewish World Review)
Posted by FreedomsLighthouse
Jul 29, 2012
John R. Houk
© July 14, 2012
Vote for the reelection of President Barack Hussein Obama.
Are you freaking nuts?
BHO blames President GW Bush for the state of America’s economy today over 3 ½ years after being elected to allegedly change the course Bush had set. Again here we are over 3 ½ years later and the only change BHO has accomplished is to further divide America along lines of class, entrench a transformation of bigger government on a Socialist-like scale with Obamacare, delegitimize America’s Christian heritage by praising Islam (less than 1% of USA) and promoting special extra civil rights for a group of immoral people known as homosexuals rather than affirming the same Constitutional rights that all Americans have under the rule of law (Homosexual American population – less than 5% of the USA).
In foreign policy BHO made it his mission to travel the globe to apologize everywhere he went for American Exceptionalism as if that was something detrimental for world peace and America’s image. The reality is that for all the foreign detractors of America the people of the world desire to live in America in droves because our political system offers the best opportunity for self-improvement economically than any foreign nation in the world. AND BHO has forgotten that the prosperity of the Western World (declining because of Leftist policies) exists out of the largesse of rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII by American protection (from the imperialistic Communism of the USSR) and American economic investment in WWII victor and defeated enemy’s economies and infrastructure.
In continuing dragging America’s foreign policy in the mud BHO is now cozying up to the parent of global transnational Islamic terrorists in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood by inviting MB members to the White House and MB political leaders that have achieved an election victory in Egypt to the degree that an MB operative is now the President of Egypt in Mohamed Morsi (or Mursi – Anglicized Arab spelling is rough to pin down).
Israel’s journalist Caroline Glick has the poop on Obama that every American voter should be aware of ESPECIALLY on how Obama has been dragging Israel under the bus while the MSM looks the other way.