WordPress.com friend futuret left a comment on the post “JEWS, NETANYAHU, FRANCE, ISLAM AND THE AGENDA” on my NCCR blog. Actually the comment was simply in a form of a link. The link was to an article by Ben Barrack who writes for Shoebat.com.
Ford had been expected to become U.S. ambassador to Egypt, according to several sources, but Egyptian government officials had objected because they regarded him as too close to Islamist parties in the Middle East.A former State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was his understanding that the Egyptian government had made clear it did not want Ford to go to Cairo to serve as U.S. ambassador.Under diplomatic practice known as “agrement (sic),” a country typically contacts another country before sending an ambassador to ensure the choice is acceptable. In this case, Ford’s candidacy did not even get that far, said the former U.S. official, who has spoken to Egyptian officials about the matter.
“…to inform the American people that their president’s brother Obama is one of the architects of the major investments of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“We will carry out the law and the Americans will not stop us. We need to open the files and begin court sessions. The Obama administration cannot stop us; they know that they supported terrorism. We will open the files so these nations are exposed, to show how they collaborated with them [the terrorists]. It is for this reason why the American administration fights us.”
General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi
John R. Houk
© January 31, 2014
General El-Sisi the head of the Egyptian military and current of head state gave a speech recently that is sure to be controversial in the Muslim world. The speech took place at Armed Forces’ Department of Moral Affairs. Here is a translated paragraph from The Clarion Project that should pique your interest:
“Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.” (Egypt’s El-Sisi Boldly Calls For Islamic Reformation; By RYAN MAURO; Clarion Project; 1/22/14)
The rest of Mauro’s article looks at the Muslim theological concept of Ijtihad. The theological concept is important because Ijtihad was the method of interpreting Islam’s holy writings and how to implement those interpretations. Apparently it is a process by which Muslim scholars provide a consensus legal interpretation. The problem that Ijtihad presents for Islam is that new Ijtihad interpretations was closed around the 10th century AD. The closed door means Islam stopped updating at about that time in history dooming the religion to a Mohammed-like medievalism, well forever. This is what General El-Sisi proposed to change.
I am not a Muslim scholar, rather I am a devout Christian that looks at Islam (really any religion or ideology) through the glasses of Biblical Christian Faith. I and many Counterjihad writers have come to the view that Islam based directly on the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah is a violent intolerant religion and since those writings are considered sacred – especially the Quran as the direct revelation of Allah – Islam will always inspire Muslims that subscribe to what the West calls radical Islam. It is my belief that Bill Warner of Political Islam provides the simplest explanation as to how Islam regards these considered holy writings:
The Islamic Bible—the Trilogy
Islam is deﬁned by the words of Allah in the Koran, and the words and actions of Mohammed, called the Sunna.
The Sunna is found in two collections of texts—the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith. The Koran says 91 times that his words and actions are considered to be the divine pattern for humanity.
A hadith, or tradition, is a brief story about what Mohammed did or said. A collection of hadiths is called a Hadith. There are many collections of hadiths, but the most authoritative are those by Bukhari and Abu Muslim, the ones used in this book.
So the Trilogy is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.
No one text of the Trilogy can stand by itself; it is impossible to understand any one of the texts without the other supporting texts. The Koran, Sira, and Hadith are a seamless whole and speak with one voice. If it is in the Trilogy it is Islam. (A Taste of Islam: The Life of Mohammed, The Sira; By Bill Warner; Center for the Study of Political Islam; © 2010; Page 1)
I suspect General El-Sisi will be labeled a heretic or an apostate by the most Conservative Islamic sects that we Westerner label as radical Islam. It remains to be seen if General El-Sisi suggestions will move forward without some kind Islamic civil war especially among the majority Sunnis (Sunnis roughly make up 90% of Islam and the Shia sects represent about 10%).
Here is something that should place into context the difficulty of reopening this door to Ijtihad. The most influential elements of Islam in America come from what we call the Radical Islam. Primarily these influences are the Wahhabis represented by Saudi money and the Muslim Brotherhood which is now waging a terror campaign in Egypt due to their favored President Morsi being deposed by the Egyptian military after the Egyptian populace began to riot in protest over Morsi’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood initiative to Islamize Egyptian society and government to the strict adherence of the Quran, Hadith and Sira.
Muslim Apologists go out of their way to tell non-Muslim Americans that the core values of Islam is peace and that Radical Islam is an aberration from the “real” Islam. AND yet most of these apologists are often connected to Radical Islamic movements such as Saudi Wahhabis and the Salafist oriented Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Wahhabi control over 80% of the Mosques in America and the Muslim Brotherhood picks up where the Saudis leave off with a direct lineage to the most influential Muslim organization in America (See Also The Muslim Brotherhood in America). As far as I am concerned Islam in America is radicalized regardless of the deception spouted by Muslim Apologists.
For your perusal below is a cross post of Mauro’s report on Egypt’s General El-Sisi and Ijtihad.
Egypt’s El-Sisi Boldly Calls For Islamic Reformation
Islam, said El-Sisi needs a modern understanding and should not rely on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.
By Ryan Mauro
January 22, 2014
General El-Sisi, the commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces and current head of state, is essentially calling for a reformation in Islam. His bold declaration comes as the Egyptian people approved a constitution in a vote that the Muslim Brotherhood boycotted.
The speech, which went unnoticed in the Western media, took place at the Armed Forces’ Department of Moral Affairs. In the speech, El-Sisi said:
“Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”
Notice what El-Sisi did not say. He did not say Zionism or Western oppression is the greatest threat to Egypt, nor did he point to a specific group like Al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. He accurately framed the struggle as an ideological one within Islam.
When he refers to the “discourse that has not changed for 800 years,” he’s referring to when the most qualified Islamic scholars of that time ruled that all questions about interpretation had been settled. The “gates” of ijtihad, the independent interpretation of Islam, ended by the year 1258. He wants the “gates” reopened, allowing for the critical examination that an Islamic reformation needs.
Elsewhere in the speech, Sisi “called on all who follow the true Islam to improve the image of this religion in front of the world, after Islam has been for decades convicted of violence and destruction around the world, due to the crimes falsely committed in the name of Islam.”
This is another important declaration. He attributes Islamic extremism to this lack of discourse. He doesn’t blame it on a Jewish conspiracy to defame Islam or describe it as an overreaction to non-Muslim aggression.
He is also pre-empting the Islamists’ inevitable attack that he is an apostate by stating that Muslims are advancing Islam by having this discourse and turning away from violence. He takes away the argument from extremists that they are the model of a devout Muslim.
The next question is whether El-Sisi has the standing in Muslim opinion to be listened to. For now, the answer is yes. The Egyptian military that he leads has a 70% favorability rating, while the Muslim Brotherhood’s rating is at 34%. He is almost certain to run for president and, at this stage, is likely to win.
When the military toppled President Morsi and El-Sisi announced the suspension of the Islamist-written constitution, he was joined by the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, an institution that is basically the equivalent of the Vatican for Sunni Islam. To date, Al-Azhar has not broken with El-Sisi or condemned his remarks.
Other influential Egyptians may endorse El-Sisi’s view. In January 2011, former Egyptian Islamist Tawfik Hamid reported that 25 Islamic scholars, including teachers from Al-Azhar, said that Ijtihad needed to be resumed. The 10 points they listed for renewed examination included the separation of mosque and state, women’s rights, relations with non-Muslims and jihad.
Calls for reform and ijtihad can be heard beneath the visible surface of the Muslim world. In my own experience, I’ve heard many average Muslims endorse reformation but their views are not reflected in the national leadership.
Some of these reformist Muslims want to reopen the “gates” of ijtihad, while others say they never considered them closed to begin with. For example, Tunisian professor Dr. Muhamd El-Haddad, argues, “Daily life has evolved radically since the last millennium, but there has been no accompanying development in mainstream Muslim legal theory.”
Professor Ziauddin Sadar of London wrote in 2002 that that Islamic doctrine is “frozen in time” and there are three doctrinal pillars that need reform: “The elevation of the Shari’ah to the level of the Divine, with the consequent removal of agency from the believers, and the equation of Islam with the State.”
Those that argue that the “gates” were never closed include Malcolm Jardine, who wrote a thoroughly-researched essay on the topic. In 2006, the U.S.-based Nawawi Foundation published a study by Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah with the premise that Islam “never had a doorkeeper to close it in the first place.”
General El-Sisi and the overall backlash against the Islamists may spark what the world needs most: An Islamic reformation. It is not enough to topple Islamists. Their ideological underpinning must be debated and defeated. The determinations of scholars from 800 years can no longer be treated as eternal truth, but for what they really are—opinions influenced by the times in which they were made.
Swing Those Doors of Ijtihad OPEN
John R. Houk
© January 31, 2014
Egypt’s El-Sisi Boldly Calls For Islamic Reformation
Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s National Security Analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and is frequently interviewed on top-tier TV stations as an expert on counterterrorism and Islamic extremism.
Copyright © 2013 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.
There are times that require people to step out of their comfort zone, to step up for justice, tolerance and moderation. We know going in that the repercussions of taking action will draw a rain of accusations and attacks from the forces we are confronting.
We do it anyway. We do it because it must be done.
Founded in 2006, the Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund Inc) is an independently funded, non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.
Clarion’s award-winning movies have been seen by over 50 million people. They grapple with issues such as religious persecution, human rights, women’s rights, the dangers of a nuclear Iran and what the concept of jihad means for the West. Our dynamic website, viewed by over 900,000 unique visitors in 2013, covers breaking news and provides commentary on relevant issues.
The Clarion Project draws together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.
John R. Houk
© August 28, 2013
Malik Obama operates the international investments of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Guess who Malik’s brother is?
It is obvious that President Barak Hussein Obama was supportive of bringing down longtime ally Hosni Mubarak which led to a close election in Egyptian in which the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party won the Office of President in Egypt. Then President Mohamed Morsi proceeded with actions to make the totality of Sharia Law the law of the land in Egypt. Sharia excited MB adherents then began attacking Coptic Christians and their Churches.
In the meantime Morsi neglected Egypt’s economy. The significant amount of secular minded Muslims of Egypt then began a protest similar to that which brought Mubarak down. Obama kept his nose out of internal Egyptian affairs undoubtedly hoping Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood would cool the Sharia stuff and reawaken their social outreach which made the MB popular with Egyptians in the first place. That did not happen. The Egyptian military duly pulled a bloodless coup (which Obama denies) and appointed an interim President until new elections could place another civilian as President.
In the meantime MB acolytes have been confronting the pro-military secularist Muslims with violence which included more Coptic Christian murders and Church burnings. This has all the appearance of an Egyptian Civil War. Where does Obama come down on Egyptian turmoil? Obama seems keen to take out dictator Bashar al-Assad of Syria that would probably pave the way for a Sunni Radical Muslim regime in Syria; however Obama has been quite quiet on whether he favors the Pro-American Egyptian military or the anti-American/anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood adherents.
Frankly I see this as a smoking gun support policy of the Obama Administration to Radical Islam’s Muslim Brotherhood. This goes a long way to explaining the allowance of Muslim Brotherhood connected Huma Abedin to continue as a Deputy Chief of Staff while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Also there is a bit more light on the Obama cover-up of Benghazigate since Ambassador Stevens was in the midst of negotiating weapons to Syrian rebels (dominated by al Qaeda Islamists) but adds mystery to the reasoning of the suspicion that then President Morsi ordered the attack on the Benghazi American annex that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Here is an article that might explain Obama’s reticence toward a proactive foreign policy toward Egypt.
August 18, 2013
This is another part of some collected emails sent over time under the pseudonym Tony Newbill. The Conspiracy issues Tony looks at in this post relate to Obama continuing to send aid to Egypt which is in civil turmoil between the Egyptian Military and the devotees of the Radical Islamic Muslim Brotherhood. Also examined is Population Control via food control, Fed Policy drowning America with Qualitative Easing (QE), Abortion and the Clinton involvement in Population Control through the auspices of the Club for Rome which has become the United Nations Agenda 21.
How’s this Obama foreign Policy and BILLIONS working out???
7/4/2013 10:48 AM
Egypt and Obama: 5 Stunning Pictures Banned by the Mainstream Media
[Editor: I am posting the first of the five here. You really should click the link below to see the other five pictures which are very uncomplimentary of President Hussein Obama from Egypt]
CNN: Protestors ‘Anti-Obama’ As Well As Anti-Morsi
Posted by National Review
Published Jul 3, 2013
101 Million People are on food assistance
7/9/2013 8:20 AM
More people on food assistance in the USA than are working full time jobs!!
101 Million People are on some form of food assistance in the USA what Kind of Opportunity is this???
We do not need excuses we need POLICY ANSWERS!!!
POPULATION CONTROL WORLDWIDE is the GOAL of the Governments
7/12/2013 9:12 AM
POPULATION CONTROL WORLDWIDE is the GOAL of the Governments and the Simple little Minds who suggest that this is all just a Minor Corruption of the paper money markets has their Head in the Sand!!!
Notice that the subject of Abortion is spreading around the world:
Ireland set to allow abortion for first time under ‘historic’ new law
July 12, 2013 5:31am, EDT
By Ian Johnston, Staff Writer, NBC News
Irish lawmakers voted to allow abortion in limited circumstances for the first time in the deeply Catholic country’s history Friday, following a bitter debate that saw letters written in blood sent to the country’s Prime Minister Enda Kenny.
Under a new bill, doctors will be allowed to end the life of an unborn child if there is a threat to the life of the pregnant woman.
Lawmakers passed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill by a substantial margin — with 127 votes for and 31 against — after a marathon debate began Thursday and ran into Friday morning.
A pro-abortion rights campaign group said … (READ THE REST)
And along with the way Obamacare cuts treatment to the elderly. They can shorten the start and end of life and ZERO growth is accomplished. And this leaves the FREE Market and Money that represents it USELESS when the collapse of the value of this ZERO Growth Phenomenon is REALIZED. And this will come as soon as enough GDP Quarters are recorded as stagnate growth evolves and the current Federal account Deficit is seen. And as Zero Growth is seen to be unserviceable by the International Bond Holders they will leave the dollar.
Watch this Video and see how this Plays out:
Go to frame 4:20 and Listen forward to Ron Insana’s Admission
7/20/2013 10:33 AM
Go to frame 4:20 and Listen forward to Ron Insana’s Admission that the Equity markets are strong because of the FED Policy and this will continue for as Long as It takes … Incredible prospect that says there is No Reason for Real Supply Side growth just print that extra cash and inject it into the markets and Like magic we have GROWTH. Is this real???
Regarding the Ron Insana Claim that Fed Policy is Great for the Markets
7/20/2013 12:49 PM
This is a great read by Bill Fleckenstein regarding the Ron Insana claim that Fed Policy is Great for the markets.
Bunk from central bankers
History teaches us that the Federal Reserve has been the root cause of our biggest, most harrowing financial problems.
Thus, when I contemplate the damage that will be done by four years (and counting) of quantitative easing, I just shudder at how big the disaster might be — and there is no doubt this experiment will be a disaster.
The Fed has expanded its balance sheet to $3.5 trillion, and it now owns more than 20% of outstanding U.S. debt. Either it is going to continue buying bonds forever, which is impossible, or there is going to be a massive dislocation at some moment, because someone else is going to have to buy that debt when the Fed ultimately stops, even if it doesn’t choose to sell anything (and just lets the debt run off).
There will be no painless extrication from QE and, as I have said, I don’t believe the Fed will be able to leave ZIRP (zero-percent interest rate policy) willingly.
More money, more problems
Printing money has never worked. The only questions are how big the consequences are going to be and when they are going to hit. This is as true today as it was 80-plus years ago, when our young central bank made its first forays into monetary mismanagement.
While the current mainstream view, with Chairman Ben Bernanke its leading proponent, holds that it is the Fed’s response to the Crash of 1929 that helped worsen and prolong the Great Depression, the fact is that the Fed deserves the blame much earlier. The Fed (even on the gold-bullion standard) actually had a very large role in causing the boom, which got out of control (Bernanke, please note).
“Domestically and internationally they constantly pumped more credit into the system, and whenever the economy showed signs of flagging they increased the dose. The most notorious occasion was in July 1927, when Strong and (Bank of England Gov. Montagu) Norman held a secret meeting of bankers at the Long Island estates of Ogden Mills, the U.S. Treasury Under-Secretary, and Mrs. Ruth Pratt, the Standard Oil heiress. Strong kept Washington in the dark and refused to let even his most senior colleagues attend. He and Norman decided on another burst of inflation and the protests of (German banker Hjalmar) Schacht and of Charles Rist, Deputy-Governor of the Bank of France, were brushed aside.”
“ . . . Strong’s last push, in fact, did little to help the ‘real’ economy. It fed speculation. Very little of the new credit went through to the mass-consumer. . . . Strong’s coup de whiskey benefited almost solely the non-wage earners: the last phase of the boom was largely speculative. . . . The 1929 crash exposed in addition the naivety and ignorance of bankers, businessmen, Wall Street experts and academic economists high and low; it showed they did not understand the system they had been so confidently manipulating. They had tried to substitute their own well-meaning policies for what Adam Smith called ‘the invisible hand’ of the market and they had wrought disaster. Far from demonstrating, as Keynes and his school later argued — at the time Keynes failed to predict either the crash or the extent and duration of the Depression — the dangers of a self-regulating economy, the dégringolad indicated quite the opposite: the risks of ill-informed meddling.”
The main point to understand is that the “ill-informed meddling” on the part of the Fed in the mid-1920s was infinitesimally small compared with what it has done in the past five years, and the ultimate damage will be correspondingly horrendous. (READ ENTIRETY - Bunk from central bankers; By Bill Fleckenstein; MSN Money; Jul 19, 2013 11:27AM)
And just to make sure you DIE a Little Quicker
7/24/2013 1:12 PM
And just to make sure you DIE a Little Quicker a New Rule is released to make your food more Toxic!!!!
Another win for Monsanto: US raises allowable levels of company’s pesticide in crops
Biotech giant Monsanto has been awarded yet another victory by the federal government thanks to a recent Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow larger traces of the herbicide glyphosate in farm-grown foods.
Despite a number of studies linking exposure to the chemical with diseases including types of cancer, the EPA is increasing the amount of glyphosate allowed in oilseed and food crops.
The EPA announced their plans on May 1 and allowed critics two months to weigh in and object to the ruling. Following little opposition, though, the EPA is on path to soon approve of levels of glyphosate being found in crops several times over the current concentration.
Glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical developed by Monsanto in 1970, is the key ingredient in the company’s “Roundup” label of herbicides. In the decades since, Monsanto has created and patented a number of genetically-modified organisms and genetically-engineered crops resisted to glyphosate that are sold worldwide under the company’s “Roundup Ready” brand. Those GMO products are then planted in fields where glyphosate, namely Roundup, is used en masse to eliminate weeds from taking over harvest. With scientists linking that chemical to cancerous diseases, though, critics decry the EPA decision and caution it could do more harm than good.
Through the EPA’s new standards, the amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.
Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded a study by finding glyphosate “exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer.” A similar study released in April concluded … (READ THE REST – Another win for Monsanto: US raises allowable levels of company’s pesticide in crops; By Russia Today [RT]; July 23, 2013 17:14 – Edited July 24, 2013 18:12)
[Editor: RT is an English language Russian media outlet. I don’t know just how independent RT is. Left Wing HuffPo on herbicide glyphosate marketed as Roundup. Monsanto: Is it an Ag Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) hero for mass food production or is the company a toxic food producer poisoning consumers with genetically enhanced foods? Two sides from Debate.org]
Do ya think it is all part of a Plan????
Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy
During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt. According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve “family planning” services around the globe over the next six years. In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.
The following is an excerpt from Clinton’s remarks….
In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health.
You see, whenever the global elite want to launch another new eugenics operation, they announce it as a great “humanitarian program” that will save millions of lives. But their real goal is to control the population and prevent millions of lives from being born.
This was also reflected in Clinton’s remarks about the United Nations Population Fund. The United Nations Population Fund has been promoting abortion, forced sterilization and radical population control measures around the globe for decades, and Hillary Clinton was super excited to talk about how the U.S. government recently renewed funding for … (READ THE REST – Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy; By Michael; Save The Environment; February 1st, 2010)
Possibly one of the most heinous of Bill Clinton’s foreign policies dealt with population control. World Population Organizations were requiring that Third World countries accept their population control agenda in order to qualify for financial assistance. The United Nations, International Planned Parenthood Federation, World Health Organization, U.S. Aid, World Bank, and other population control groups used hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars to kill babies around the world in the effort of controlling the population and to advance the depopulation agenda of The Club of Rome.
They have stated the priorities of their common agenda:
· Generalize worldwide sex education among youth.
· World wide (sic) legalization of abortion.
· World legalization of sterilization.
Abortion as Family Planning
Pro-abortion groups do not admit to promoting abortion “as a method of family planning.” Rather, they say they promote legalization of abortion and/or provide abortion to protect women’s health from illegal abortion, or as a “contraceptive backup,” or because it is necessary to bring about equal status of women in society, etc.
United Nations Conference on Population and Development
A Special Report EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) March 10, 1981, reported a Club of Rome planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world’s population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary. The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council’s Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger.
The Clinton administration perceived an “approaching disaster” of world overpopulation. The problem, as they see it, is human beings – far too many human beings. They think the world is awash in babies. To remedy this problem, Vice President Al Gore and U.S. Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth led an American delegation of 45 members to the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, September 5-13, 1994.
© Tony Newbill
Edited by John R. Houk
Posted August 18, 2013
Pseudonym Tony Newbill is awesome for a different perspective on Current Event. He filters the news through the eyes of the Conspiracy Theory and yet in my opinion there are enough facts to really change the theory into a Conspiracy.
BIG Government is all about Control and look what control in history has solved
7/1/2013 10:00 AM
This is a 1979 plan to control Population growth in the world and we can for sure see the similarities in what is going on today:
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
The silver value is stable, it being possible to buy the same amount with a gram of silver today as it could be bought in 1920. Human value measured in silver units changes slightly due to changes in production technology.
As in every social system approach, stability is achieved only by understanding and accounting for human nature (action/reaction patterns). A failure to do so can be, and usually is, disastrous.
As in other human social schemes, one form or another of intimidation (or incentive) is essential to the success of the draft. Physical principles of action and reaction must be applied to both internal and external subsystems.
To secure the draft, individual brainwashing/programming and both the family unit and the peer group must be engaged and brought under control.
Factor II – Father
The man of the household must be housebroken to ensure that junior will grow up with the right social training and attitudes. The advertising media, etc., are engaged to see to it that father-to-be is pussy-whipped before or by the time he is married. He is taught that he either conforms to the social notch cut out for him or his sex life will be hobbled and his tender companionship will be zero. He is made to see that women demand security more than logical, principled, or honorable behavior.
By the time his son must go to war, father (with jelly for a backbone) will slam a gun into junior’s hand before father will risk the censure of his peers, or make a hypocrite of himself by crossing the investment he has in his own personal opinion or self-esteem. Junior will go to war or father will be embarrassed. So junior will go to war, the true purpose not withstanding (sic).
Factor III – Mother
The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins, fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor. A woman must, however, be conditioned to accept the transition to “reality” when it comes, or sooner.
As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-operated child-care centers must be become more common and legally enforced so as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs [Ritalin] can speed the transition for the child (mandatory). Caution: A woman’s impulsive anger can override her fear. An irate woman’s power must never be underestimated, and her power over a pussy-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women the vote in 1920.
Factor IV – Junior
The emotional pressure for self-preservation during the time of war and the self-serving attitude of the common herd that have an option to avoid the battlefield – if junior can be persuaded to go – is all of the pressure finally necessary to propel Johnny off to war. Their quiet blackmailings of him are the threats: “No sacrifice, no friends; no glory, no girlfriends.”
Factor V – Sister
And what about junior’s sister? She is given all the good things of life by her father, and taught to expect the same from her future husband regardless of the price.
Factor VI – Cattle
This concludes what is available of this document. (Full post of “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”)
In the last Century 290 million people killed by Government in the world
Video: Demand a Real Plan
Published on Jan 3, 2013
!!!!Write Your Demand In The Comments Below!!!
Sick and tired of watching celebrities who protect themselves with armed guards, calling for the government to outlaw your guns? Please forward this video to those who think they should take your guns and make you a victim.
Contact your Congress members today and tell them to stop attempting to dismantle our Constitution and steal our 2nd Amendment rights. Find out how here:
Democide: Murder by Government — University of Hawaii
Death by Gun Control — Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE:
Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
In the associated volume, Death by Government , I described fourteen cases in which since 1900 a regime murdered or is suspected of murdering over 1,000,000 subjects and foreigners. Four of these regimes, the Soviet Union, communist China, Nationalist China, and Nazi Germany, each killed 10,000,000 or more unarmed and helpless men, women, and children.
I also gave some descriptive statistics on these and all 204 other cases of democide (genocide, politicide, massacres, extrajudicial executions, and other forms of mass murder) by state and quasi-state regimes, and non-state groups. These revealed democide’s incredible magnitude in this century and well showed the close relationship between the extent of a regime’s totalitarian power, or Power in short, and democide. My conclusion was that Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely.
In 1986 I began this work on democide in order to … (Excerpted from above link By R.J. Rummel)
Have you listened to this gal???
Mon 7/1/2013 4:20 PM
The Mother of all Crisis is a Currency War against the U.S. Dollar and this gal tells of how the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] are doing this now.
WORLD BANK EXPOSED!!! WHISTLEBLOWER Former Senior Counsel Karen Hudes TELL IT ALL!!!
Posted by ImmaWISEbiiitch
Published on May 8, 2013
INTERVIEW with Karen Hudes, Former Senior Counsel to the World Bank—now turned whistle-blower! During the interview Karen indicated that the world is rapidly changing, with western power structures breaking down, economic & political influence gravitating to BRICs nations, all amid a pending currency transition which will highly favor precious metals.
Whistleblower Karen Hudes [Pt.1] Corruption / World Bank Exposed
Posted by ResistNWOrder
Published on May 24, 2013
Interview – OneRadioNetwork.com
7/2/2013 8:34 AM
Is this why Obama & Co. want this to go away?
Ironclad: Egypt Involved in Benghazi Attacks
By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies
June 30, 2013
A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.
After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by “law enforcement and intelligence agencies”.
Based on the Obama administration’s standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).
Since we’re deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President – Mohammed Mursi – is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a ‘smoking gun’. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of … (READ THE REST)
Glenn Beck: Shocking Video
7/2/2013 3:12 PM
THIS Is Who We Are Helping In Syria?! SHARE WITH EVERYONE!
Posted by TheDailyBeck
Published on Jun 17, 2013
From the June 17, 2013 edition of “Glenn Beck” on TheBlaze TV: WARNING- This video contains DISTURBING images. The Obama administration, along with PROGRESSIVE Republicans AND Democrats are OK providing assistance to the Syrian ‘rebels’…the same ‘rebels’ who have pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda and who cut the heart and liver out of their enemies and eat it. WE MUST NOT GET INVOLVED IN THIS WAR!
SHARE THIS VIDEO WITH EVERYONE!
This is The Bible: This is Egypt: We are witnessing the GOD’s Word as TRUTH!!!!
7/3/2013 10:08 AM
This is The Bible:
“And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, [and] kingdom against kingdom.” (Isaiah 19:2)
This is Egypt:
[Editor: There are numerous short videos on this Shoebat.com post showing Egyptians fighting Egyptians.]
We are witnessing the GOD’s Word as TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this something we should celebrate on the 4th of July????
7/3/2013 11:23 AM
Michael Savage: Janet Napolitano Deal Bringing 15,000 Russian Troops to U.S. to Help in Disasters
Posted by imitator777
Published on Jul 3, 2013
Aired on July 2, 2013 – The Savage Nation – Michael Savage – Janet Napolitano Signed Deal Bringing 15,000 Russian Troops to U.S. to Help in Disasters – Visit: http://www.michaelsavage.com For More Information Everyday (sic).
© Tony Newbill
Edited by John R. Houk
Danny Jeffrey analyzes the current social chaos in Egypt which has led to deposing Mohamed Morsi from the Office of President and has placed Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood on the defensive.
Danny views George Soros as the puppet master, Barack Obama as a Soros puppeteer and the Muslim Brotherhood as one of many tools to accomplish the puppet master’s goals.
If anyone has the guts in Congress to investigate Barack Hussein Obama concerning the numerous scandals that will divulge illegal activities, there are other reasons to get rid of Obama for just bad management that is not unconstitutional. Perhaps it is time to Amend the Constitution to place a No-Confidence vote into the House of Representatives with repercussions that limit the Office of President’s Executive Power until the House is satisfied there is enough confidence in the Office to perform his/her job.
Caroline Glick writes about Obama’s incompetence. Perhaps Obama is so incompetent that we can finally catch him breaking the law á la Chicago-style.
Obama’s war of ideas
By Caroline Glick
June 28, 2013, 3:15 AM
US foreign policy is failing worldwide.
The Russian and Chinese embrace of indicted traitor Edward Snowden is just the latest demonstration of the contempt in which the US is held by an ever increasing number of adversarial states around the world.
Iran has also gotten a piece of the action.
As part of the regime’s bread and circuses approach to its subjects, supreme dictator Ali Khamenei had pretend reformer Hassan Rohani win the presidential election in a landslide two weeks ago. Rohani has a long record of advancing Iran’s nuclear program, both as a national security chief and as a senior nuclear negotiator. He also has a record of deep involvement in acts of mass terror, including the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds.
Yet rather than distance itself from Rohani the phony, the Obama administration has celebrated Iranian democracy and embraced him as a reformer. Obama’s spokesmen say they look forward to renewing nuclear talks with Rohani, and so made clear – yet again – that the US has no intention of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Rohani responded to the administration’s embrace by stating outright he will not suspend Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities. In other words, so great is Iran’s contempt for President Barack Obama and his administration, that it didn’t even pay lip service to the notion of cutting a deal.
And that makes sense. Obama only has one card he is willing to play with Iran: appeasement. And so that is the card he plays. His allies are already talking about containing a nuclear Iran. But that’s not an option.
A government’s ability to employ a strategy of nuclear containment is entirely dependent on the credibility of its nuclear threats. Obama is slashing the US nuclear arsenal, and Snowden reportedly just gave the Russians and the Chinese the US’s revised nuclear war plans. Obama has no credibility in nuclear games of chicken. He has no chance of containing Khamenei and his apocalyptic jihad state.
Iran, its Russian ally and its Lebanese Hezbollah proxy now have the upper hand in the Syrian civil war. In large part due to Obama’s foreign policy, the war is spilling into Lebanon and threatening Jordan and Iraq – not to mention Israel. In response to this state of affairs, Obama has decided to begin arming the al-Qaida-dominated Syrian opposition forces. Now it’s true, Obama is planning to transfer US arms to the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army that is recognized by the US. But that is no reason not to worry.
The Free Syrian Army is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. It condemned the US’s decision to designate the Syrian al-Qaida affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, a foreign terrorist organization. FSA fighters and commanders regularly collaborate with (and sometimes fight) Al-Nusra. At a minimum, there is no reason to believe that these US arms will not be used in conjunction with al-Qaida forces in Syria.
In truth, there is little reason from a US perspective to view a Syria dominated by any of the warring parties – including the FSA – as amenable to US interests or values. There is no ideological distinction between the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and those of al-Qaida, or Hamas or a dozen other jihadist armed groups that were formed by Muslim Brotherhood members. Like Iran and its proxies, they all want to see Western civilization – led by the US – destroyed. And yes, they all want to destroy Israel, and Europe.
But for the Obama administration, this ideological affinity is not relevant.
The only distinction they care about is whether a group just indoctrinates people to become jihadists, or whether they are actively engaged – at this minute – in plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks against the US. And even then, there are exceptions.
For instance, the Taliban are actively waging war against the US in Afghanistan. But since the Obama administration has no will to defeat the Taliban, it is begging them to negotiate with US officials.
Obama’s default position in the Muslim world is to support the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is the wellspring of the Sunni jihadist movement. And Obama is the Brotherhood’s greatest ally. He facilitated the Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt, at the expense of the US’s most important Arab ally, Hosni Mubarak.
He even supported them at the expense of American citizens employed in Egypt by US government-supported NGOs. Forty-three Americans were arrested for promoting democracy, and all the administration would do was facilitate their escape from Egypt. Robert Becker, the one US aid worker who refused to flee, was abandoned by the State Department. He just escaped from Egypt after being sentenced to two years in prison.
The Obama administration supports the Morsi government even as it persecutes Christians. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood even though the government has demonstrated economic and administrative incompetence, driving Egypt into failed state status. Egypt is down to its last few cans of fuel. It is facing the specter of mass starvation. And law and order have already broken down entirely. It has lost the support of large swathes of the public. But still Obama maintains faith.
Then there are the Palestinians.
John Kerry is knocking on our door again this week in an obsessive effort to restart the mordant phony peace process. For its part, as The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh reported this week, the supposedly moderate Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority has adopted a policy of denying Jews entrance to PA-ruled areas. Jewish reporters – Israeli and non-Israeli – are barred from covering the PA or speaking with Fatah and PA officials.
Jewish diplomats are barred from speaking to PA officials or joining the entourage of diplomats who speak with them. Jewish businessmen are barred from doing business in the PA.
As for the radical Hamas terror group that rules Gaza, this week Hamas again reiterated its loyalty to its covenant which calls for the obliteration of Israel and the annihilation of world Jewry.
But Kerry is coming back because he’s convinced that the reason there’s no peace process is that Israelis are too rich, and too happy, and too stingy, and too suspicious, and too lacking in empathy for the Palestinians who continue to teach their children to murder our children.
You might think that this pile-on of fiascos would lead Obama and his advisers to reconsider their behavior.
But you’d be wrong. If Obama were asked his opinion of his foreign policy he would respond with absolute conviction that his foreign policy is a total success – everywhere. And by his own metrics, he’d be right.
Obama is a man of ideas. And he has surrounded himself with men and women who share his ideas. For Obama and his advisers, what matters are not the facts, but the theoretical assumptions – the ideas – that determine their policies. If they like an idea, if they find it ideologically attractive, then they base their policies on it. Consequences and observable reality are no match for their ideas. To serve their ideas, reality can be deliberately distorted. Facts can be ignored, or denied.
Obama has two ideas that inform his Middle East policy. First, the Muslim Brotherhood is good. And so his policy is to support the Muslim Brotherhood, everywhere. That’s his idea, and as long as the US continues to support the Brotherhood, its foreign policy is successful. For Obama it doesn’t matter whether the policy is harmful to US national security. It doesn’t matter if the Brotherhood slaughters Christians and Shi’ites and persecutes women and girls. It doesn’t matter if the Brotherhood’s governing incompetence transforms Egypt – and Tunisia, and Libya and etc., into hell on earth. As far as Obama is concerned, as long as he is true to his idea, his foreign policy is a success.
Obama’s second idea is that the root cause of all the problems in the region is the absence of a Palestinian state on land Israel controls. And as a consequence, Israel is to blame for everything bad that happens because it is refusing to give in to all of the Palestinians’ demands.
Stemming from this view, the administration can accept a nuclear Iran. After all, if Israel is to blame for everything, then Iran isn’t a threat to America.
This is why Fatah terrorism, incitement and anti-Semitism are ignored.
This is why Hamas’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ghazi Hamad reported that he met with senior US officials two weeks ago.
This is why Kerry is coming back to pressure the rich, stingy, paranoid, selfish Jews into making massive concessions to the irrelevant Palestinians.
Obama’s satisfaction with his foreign policy is demonstrated by the fact that he keeps appointing like-minded ideologues to key positions.
This week it was reported that Kerry is set to appoint Robert Malley to serve as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Malley has built his career out of advancing the ideas Obama embraces.
In 2001, Malley authored an article in The New York Times where he blamed Israel for the failure of the Camp David peace summit in July 2000. At that summit, Israel offered the Palestinians nearly everything they demanded. Not only did Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat refuse the offer. He refused to make a counteroffer.
Instead he went home and ordered his deputies to prepare to initiate the terror war against Israel which he started two months later.
As Lee Smith wrote in a profile of Malley in Tablet in 2010, Malley’s article, and subsequent ones, “created a viable interpretative framework for continuing to blame both sides for the collapse of the peace process even after the outbreak of the second intifada. If both sides were at fault, then it would be possible to resume negotiations once things calmed down. If, on the other hand, the sticking point was actually about existential issues – the refusal to accept a Jewish state – and the inability, or unwillingness, of the Palestinians to give up the right of Arab refugees to return to their pre- 1948 places of residence, then Washington would have been compelled to abandon the peace process after Clinton left office.”
In other words, Malley shared the idea that Israel was to blame for the pathologies of the Arabs. Stemming from this view, Malley has been meeting with Hamas terrorists for years. He belittled the threat posed by a nuclear Iran and accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of exaggerating the Iranian nuclear threat to divert attention away from the Palestinians. He has also met with Hezbollah, and has been an outspoken supporter of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
AFTER THE September 11 attacks, the US pledged to wage a war of ideas in the Muslim world. And in Obama’s foreign policy, we have such a war of ideas.
The only problem is that all of his ideas are wrong.
© 2013 Caroline Glick
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