The Washington Times contacted Aluma Dankowitz of the Middle East Media Research Institute for a translation of lyrics from a song on Nour Mehana’s latest album. The Times reported yesterday that Mehana, a popular Syrian singer whose band provoked fears of group bomb making amongst passengers and crew on a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles on June 29, has a song titled, “Um El Shaheed,” or “Mother of a Martyr,” which glorifies Palestinian suicide bombing of Israeli targets:
“The song tells the story of a woman who mourned her son's death until she realized that “he died for a good cause and he should be glorified for what he did,” said Miss Dankowitz, who translated the song for The Washington Times. Mr. Mehana, widely known as the Syrian Wayne Newton, sings to the mother that her son's goals are heroic and she should be happy he is dead.
“The song opens with the depiction of a mother crying over her son. He has said goodbye to his friends and family and is not going to come back. He went with a weapon in one palm and his heart in another palm and he's not going to come back,” Miss Dankowitz said. “He went to fight to free Palestine, Golan Heights and South Lebanon.””
I am tempted to question the sort of culture that encourages such depraved lyrics, but then a single artist is not necessarily representative of a culture. Instead, I wonder aloud, given Mehana’s apparent interest in freedom and self determination, where are his songs calling for the people of Lebanon to free themselves from occupation by Syria?
The Washington Times yesterday provided details about the Syrian musicians whose behavior on a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles on June 29 raised suspicions of group bomb making drills. The Times reported that 13 of the 14 musicians were traveling on expired visas and noted that the fourteenth musician is a United States citizen. This lapse in security is especially troubling because Syria is designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Gabrielle, who called the article to my attention, noted that when enforced, immigration law can be a tool for addressing security concerns:
"Regardless of whether or not these Syrians were genuine musicians, we should not be letting ANYONE travel on expired visas. If you let innocent foreigners get away with it, then pretty soon malicious people take advantage of that fact to do the same. And then the law enforcement who questioned them after the "suspicious" flight didn't even NOTICE that they were traveling on expired visas?! The whole point of abolishing INS and moving immigration functions into the Department of Homeland Security was PRECISELY to drive home to law enforcement the fact that immigration violations can be an indirect tool for addressing security problems!"
Another day remains in the Democrat convention, already I am tired of clichéd references to “Kerry’s Week” or “Kerry’s Moment.” Surely someone somewhere can concoct a better way to describe the hyping of expectations that will culminate when John Kerry formally accepts the Democrat nomination for the presidency. Clichés aside, the convention is providing Kerry with a week of controlled media exposure during which he is portrayed in terms far different than what is indicated by his record.
In a legislative body bloated with liberals who define charitable giving as taking money from one group of citizens and giving it to another, Kerry stands out as among the most liberal senators of all, but his charitable inclinations seem to stop at his own wallet. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery documented how Kerry has spent wealth acquired by two marriages, and how in between those marriages he gave negligible amounts to charity: “… a possible insight into his priorities could be inferred from his tax records for the year 1993 … in which he earned $130,345 and gave exactly $175 to charity, while indulging in an $8,600 Italian-made mountain bike for himself.”
Kerry’s charitable giving is a valid subject for public scrutiny because as a left-wing liberal his political agenda emphasizes ‘giving’ in the form of tax redistributions. One could reasonably expect above average charity from the so-called compassionate left. Emery demonstrated that this is not the case with Kerry: “According to the Boston Globe, between 1990 and 1995… Kerry earned a total of $724,042 and gave $4,869 to charity, or a grand total of 0.7 percent… In this six-year span between his two marriages, the most Kerry ever gave to charity was $2,039 in 1994. Two years, he gave nothing at all.”
Kerry is also portrayed as a man of Catholic faith, with stress on his upbringing in the Church, his years as an altar boy, and the constant presence of a St. Christopher medal around his neck, but his record in public life does not align with his profession of faith. Worse than the contradiction between his generosity with other people’s money and stinginess with his own, Kerry seeks the mantle of the Church even as he panders for the endorsement of pro-abortion groups that are antithetical to Catholic tradition and teaching. Choosing words carefully- it is not my place to question Kerry’s place in the mystical body of Christ- I am hard pressed to believe that Christ would share Kerry’s convictions regarding abortion. There is a special place of worship for Catholics who favor abortion- it is called the Episcopal Church. Kerry could demonstrate personal integrity and align his faith and politics by joining it.
Kerry’s combat record and claim of unwavering support for national security is also emphasized. The gap between claim and reality is evident in his voting record which is remarkable for its near perfect opposition to spending on defense and intelligence programs. Barbara Comstock wrote in National Review that Kerry, “… voted against funding the MX missile, the Patriot missile, the Apache helicopter, the Blackhawk helicopter, the B-1 Bomber, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and just about every significant weapons system used in the war on terrorism…” As has been much remarked, he opposed $87 billion in funding for troops deployed in Iraq- troops he voted to send to Iraq in the first place. In the years before and after the 9/11 attacks, he supported every effort by senate Democrats to slash funding for intelligence programs even as he now lashes out at flawed intelligence gathering. Comstock wrote, “In September 1995, two years after the first World Trade Center attack, Senator Kerry proposed cutting $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. Kerry included the cuts in a laundry list of government expenditures that… described as “pointless, wasteful, antiquated, or just plain silly.” Comstock continued, “Kerry's 1995 proposal was no aberration. In 1994 Kerry twice pushed to cut $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and advocated freezing their budgets. When the bill got stuck in committee, Kerry proposed it as an amendment to another bill.” According to Comstock, “… during the eight years Kerry served on the Intelligence Committee, he proposed budget cuts at least three times. So how many times during his eight-year tenure on the Intelligence Committee did he propose legislation to increase funding for human intelligence or to reform the intelligence community? You guessed it: zilch, zero.” This is not a confidence inspiring record and it certainly does not support the claim that Kerry is strong on national defense.
Emery documented the arrogance for which Kerry is famous amongst Bostonians: ““One of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories,” says Howie Carr, the Boston Herald columnist and radio host. “The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: The junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing), or ducking out before the bill arrives. The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: ‘Do you know who I am?’”
From his record we do know who John Kerry is- a Massachusetts limousine liberal. The better question is, does John Kerry know who John Kerry is?
When one of the most liberal men I know agrees with the most conservative man I know, a rethink is necessary.
Words to cheer from the convention speech given by the worst LIVING president in modern times:
"My name is Jimmy Carter, and I am not running for president."
Words to cheer from the convention speech given by the worst president in modern times:
"My name is Jimmy Carter, and I am not running for president."
The Arab News Daily concluded from the report issued by the congressional commission investigating 9/11: "Unfortunately the fact that they [Americans] have now shared in the terror that has long afflicted the rest of the world has not yet helped them understand the basic injustices on which terrorism feeds and thrives such as the atrocity of Palestine. No committee is needed to tell us who is behind the terrorism Palestinians are suffering every day."
As Armies of Liberation succinctly put it, "What a load of trash coming from the official English language newspaper of Saudi Arabia." Americans understand, commission report or not, that terrorism feeds on the doctrines of Islamism and that Saudi Arabia, the world's dominant exporter of the hateful Wahabbist strain of Islamism, is very much responsible for the rise of international Islamist terror. We also understand that most of the murderers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians.
Much more than a congressional report, however, will be necessary to end the hatred that so blinds Saudi Arabia. Nothing short of a reformation in Islam will open the eyes of the Arab world to simple facts: Yasser Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Saudi Arabia stand between Palestinians and peaceful coexistence with Israel. Islamism will not abide by a two state solution between Israel and Palestine and the Arab world cares not a whit for the Palestinians as human beings, finding them much more useful as an excuse for anti-Semitism.
The New York Times continued spinning Trousergate yesterday as little more than partisan character assassination. The Times report contained stale news reworded to implicate the Bush-Cheney reelection effort in a campaign of nastiness. In the meantime, the Washington Post and the Daily News actually worked the story and found sources that seem to corroborate the points I outlined in “The Times Spins Sandy Berger.”
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his taking classified documents from a secure reading room, not once but twice.
From the Post: "Berger, his attorney Lanny Breuer said, checked his office and realized for the first time that he had walked out -- unintentionally, he says -- with important papers relating to the Clinton administration's efforts to combat terrorism."
- The documents that Berger removed would seem to include all of the existing copies (in draft or final version) of a particular report.
From the Post: "The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government… Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said."
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his destruction of certain of those classified documents.
From the Post: "Despite searching his home and office, Berger could not find [the missing documents]."
- Berger knowingly snuck his notes about those classified documents out of the secure reading room in his pant and jacket pockets.
From the Post: "Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing. Through attorneys and spokesmen, Berger has denied doing that."
From the Daily News: "… archives monitors told the FBI that Berger was observed stuffing his socks with handwritten notes about files he reviewed that were going to the 9/11 panel. It is prohibited to make notes about the secret files and leave with them without special approval. "Stuffed socks and pockets is real," the senior law enforcement official said. "The [theft] was reported by the guards.""
- Berger characterized as voluntary, his return of the documents.
From the Post: "As his attorneys tell it, Berger had no idea in October that documents were missing from the Archives, or that archivists suspected him in the disappearance. It was not until two days later, on Saturday, Oct. 4, that he was contacted by Archives employees who said that they were concerned about missing files, from his September and October visits. This call -- in Berger's version of the chronology, which is disputed in essential respects by a government official with knowledge of the investigation -- was made with a tone of concern, but not accusation.
Berger, his attorney Lanny Breuer said, checked his office and realized for the first time that he had walked out -- unintentionally, he says -- with important papers relating to the Clinton administration's efforts to combat terrorism.
Berger alerted Archives employees that evening to what he had found. The classified documents were sensitive enough that employees arrived on a Sunday morning to pick them up.
Several days later, after he had retained Breuer as counsel, Berger volunteered that he had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives beginning in July, the lawyer said. Berger turned the notes over to the Archives. He has acknowledged through attorneys that he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving -- a violation of Archives rules, but not one that he perceived as a serious security lapse.
By then, however, Archives officials had served notice that there were other documents missing. Despite searching his home and office, Berger could not find them. By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week…
… A government official with knowledge of the investigation said Archives employees took action promptly after noticing a missing document in September. This official said an Archives employee called former White House deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey, who is former president Bill Clinton's liaison to the National Archives. The Archives employee said documents were missing and would have to be returned.
Under this version of events -- which Breuer denied -- documents were returned the following day from Berger's office to the Archives. Not included in these papers, the government official said, were any drafts of the document at the center of this week's controversy."
- The National Archives indicates that the documents were missed, that a trap was set, and that he was subsequently caught.
From the Post: "The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it."
- The FBI is investigating the matter and has searched Berger's house.
From the Post: "By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week."
I remain baffled as to why a man in Berger’s position would jeopardize his reputation. I can only conclude that the stakes were sufficiently high- that or there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy.
With thanks to John Vecchione, following is an excerpt published by AsiaNews.it from an interview with Monsignor Rabban Al Qas, Chaldaean bishop of Amadiyah in northern Iraq:
"The Western press has been unjust towards Iraq. It has focused only on the dark side, on terrorism, killings, car bombs, the cruel images of decapitation. Some went as far as saying violence was justified because it was aimed at the occupiers. Unfortunately, ordinary people are the ones who paid a high price, Muslims and Christians working for the Americans or finding themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time when some car explodes. The so-called “resistance” hardly ever kills Americans. No! Opposition should mean defending the rights of the people, not killing them. If you strike and kill fellow countrymen and women, you are not a resistance fighter, you are but a destroyer, a bearer of death.
The press has been backward-looking focusing on the negative side of the situation, never talking about the positive things the former provisional council did and the present interim government is doing. No one showed that, despite the political upheaval, the uncertainties and lack of security, schools reopened. Whether primary, high and secondary schools, or universities, the normal academic year ended as one would expect.
Under Saddam there was only poverty. Now the economy is slowly reviving thanks to what the government and the Americans are doing. New building sites are opening, new construction is going on. All this in spite of terrorist attacks. How many people paid in blood their commitment to rebuild Iraq? Italians, Japanese, French, Americans, Koreans . . . No one talks about power plants restarting, oil wells reopening, agricultural programmes being launched, roads being rebuilt. . . that were once filled with potholes.
What can one say about the press and freedom of the press? There are at least 150 daily newspapers in the country. And what about demonstrations? Under Saddam, they were banned . . ."
"... an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.
The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side."
This, and much more disturbing evidence that terrorists are casing our air transportation system in the Washington Times.
Daimnation noticed, via Little Green Footballs, twisted logic remarkable even by the standards of the New York Times editorial page. The Times wrote, "[Arafat] is, after all, a democratically elected leader, though the term he won in 1996 was never meant to be this long."
Responded Daimnation, "You know what that's normally called? It's called "not being a democratically elected leader.""
It's also called intellectually dishonesty.
Scandal was the word most used yesterday to describe news that Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor to former President Clinton, and a formal policy advisor to John Kerry, removed and destroyed classified materials from a secure government reading room while preparing to testify before the 9/11 Commission. You wouldn’t have guessed as much from reading the New York Times yesterday morrning, but there are many reasons to suspect that Berger's behavior was anything but inadvertant.
Yesterday morning, before the scandal had gained momentum, the Times quoted Berger as saying, "… I inadvertently took a few documents from the archives." The Times wrote, “Mr. Berger removed at least two versions of a memorandum assessing how the government handled intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebrations in 1999, his lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, said. He also removed notes he took about classified documents…”
I read this article and extended the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Berger. I suspect that most readers concluded as I did, that Berger went to the library, did some research and accidentally tucked confidential library materials in to his papers as he was leaving. A simple mistake… or so I thought. Times readers may not have known that while they absorbed the (purposely?) truncated and incomplete version of the story that appeared online yesterday, other media, notably the Blogsphere, were posting important details about what clearly is a scandal.
InstaPundit, for example, referenced an Associated Press report that Berger “inadvertently” took documents on more than one occasion: “… [National] Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day… Officials familiar with the investigation said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to raise concerns.”
VodkaPundit also referenced an Associated Press report that Berger removed notes on the classified documents from the secured environment by tucking them into his clothing: “Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants.”
This morning the Times reported, albeit reluctantly, that there may be more to the story than can be explained as “inadvertent” behavior. It spent the better part of the first page of the article portraying Berger as a victim of Republican opportunism. It wrote that Republicans accused [Berger] … of stashing the material in his clothing” and noted that Berger’s attorney had characterized this accusation as ““ridiculous” and politically inspired.” Not until the second page, and well toward the end of the article did the Times mention that Berger, “… put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents.”
How can the Times justify reporting a sanitized version of the story yesterday when troubling details were readily available from news bureaus and on the Internet? What, if not bias, explains the Times obvious attempt today to paper over the sinister details of an emerging scandal that hurts the Democrat party’s chances in the November elections. Imagine if Condaleeza Rice was discovered to have removed classified materials from a secure government reading room. Would the Times pull punches?
I am unable to explain why Berger would purposely steal and destroy classified documents. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the details of the story demand otherwise.
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his taking of classified documents from a secure reading room, not once but twice.
- The documents that Berger removed would seem to include all of the existing copies (in draft or final version) of a particular report.
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his destruction of certain of those classified documents.
- Berger knowingly snuck his notes about those classified documents out of the secure reading room in his pant and jacket pockets.
- Berger characterized as voluntary, his return of the documents, but the National Archives indicates that the documents were missed, that a trap was set, and that he was subsequently caught.
- The FBI is investigating the matter and has searched Berger's house.
A pattern emerges from these facts- whether or not the Times likes it- the pattern has nothing to do with inadvertant behavior
In "Spineless Philippines Sucker Punch Iraq" I wrote, "Americans of good conscience can add the Philippines to the growing list of countries whose exports should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. As the Philippines do not actually export anything of value- the lifestyle impact will be nil." It ocurred to me this afternoon that the Philippines do export one lifestyle enhancing product, San Miguel beer. I drank a fair amount of it in Hong Kong and while it isn't often seen on menus in Washington, D.C., I regret removing it from the realm of my consideration.
The New York Times today reported that Jiang Yanyong, the doctor who exposed China’s cover-up of a rural SARS epidemic was released from custody. He had been detained by the Chinese Communist Party for writing a letter to party leaders asking for an honest reassessment of the massacre in Tiananmen Square. Because Yanyong had the temerity to demand that the CCP take responsibility for its actions, he was held for seven weeks and subjected to “study sessions” (a euphemism for brainwashing). The septuagenarian is ‘free’ now, which for dissidents in China means under house arrest and prevented from speaking publicly.
“So. The Coalition has lost 50 humanitarian workers in Iraq, and an al Qaeda-affiliated group has six million dollars in cash. It's time to recognize a new coalition, one initiated by the new Spanish government. We'll call it the Coalition of the Prostrate. Give a lukewarm welcome to the Philippines as the newest member of the club.”
So commented Vodka Pundit in response to reporting by The Daily Tribune via Michelle Malkin that the Philippine government, in order to secure safe release for truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, not only agreed an early withdrawal of it’s humanitarian workers in Iraq, but also agreed to pay $6 million in ransom to the Islamists who kidnapped him.
This sucker punch to Iraq- losing humanitarian workers while Islamists pocket an enormous sum of money with which to purchase weapons to turn against the Iraqi people- has a positive side. Americans of good conscience can add the Philippines to the growing list of countries whose exports should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. As the Philippines do not actually export anything of value- the lifestyle impact will be nil.
It is not often that Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or share a stage- when they do one is well advised to pay attention. Both are first rate minds with an incredible understanding of the history and practice of Islam. While reading Aaron's Rantblog, I came across a FrontPage Symposium that featured Spencer, Ye'or and Kahleel Mohammed (also a bright fellow) on the subject of "The Koran and Anti-Semitism". The transcript of the Symposium is lengthy but extremely rewarding. Take the time and read it for insight into the problems that plague Islam today.
The New York Times today published an article on the security threat posed by Western converts to Islam. The Times wrote that converts are not easily identifiable by immigration and customs officials, a fact likely to be leveraged by Islamists planning terrorist attacks: "Converts will be used for striking more and more by jihadist circles," said Jean-Luc Marret, a terrorism expert at the Strategic Research Foundation, in Paris. "They have been used in the past for proselytism, logistics or support, and they are operationally useful now."
The Times reported that many new converts are social losers who first encounter Islam in prison. In France for example, the prison population is more than fifty percent Muslim. The Times wrote, “Antoine Sfeir, a French scholar who is writing a book on the trend, said a small number of converts, many of them disaffected and often troubled young people, saw the current wave of Islamic terrorism as "a kind of combat against the rich, powerful, by the poor men of the planet."
The Times notes that, “Only a small fraction of Western Islamic converts sympathize with terrorism, and even fewer become engaged in terrorist activity.” While true, the small numbers who do sympathize with Islamism are cause for concern in open Western societies struggling with issues of profiling and security.
Allah Is In The House has brilliantly captured the Kerry-Edward's policy approach to Iraq and the Middle East should we be so unfortunate as to see them in office.
On July 6, Arab News Daily published an article by Linda Heard titled, "America's Growing Culture of Hate." I analyzed her article in a July 7 posting titled, "Pot Meet Kettle, The Hypocrisy of Islamic Journalism." I posted Linda's response to my analysis yesterday as "Linda Heard Responds." Following is my response to her response.
Linda-
Firstly, thank you for your email and apologies for my delayed response.
It did not escape my attention that your article was written about events in the United States. Most of my response dealt with the events you described as contributing to a culture of hatred toward Muslims in the United States. I tried to distinguish between what could reasonably be considered hateful behavior (e.g., vandalism and threatened or actual violence), and what is rightly characterized as the exercise of free speech (e.g., Doctor Laura’s radio program). Your response provides a laundry list of anecdotal evidence for what you conclude is the beginnings of a “mass paranoia” toward Islam. I beg to differ. The United States is coming to grips with a serious national security threat that is attributable to Islam and Islamism. While the threat predates 9/11, it was brought into sharp focus by that day’s mass murder of thousands of innocents by 19 Muslim men. Need I remind you that while so many in New York and Washington suffered from the 9/11 attacks, many Muslims celebrated the carnage and death by dancing in streets round the world. Americans did not respond to 9/11 with violent rampages against Muslims living in the United States. There was an increase in threats and vandalism but appreciably little actual violence (I think there were two actual deaths- one of them a Sikh- in a country of 250 million people). Indeed, one can document vastly more violence and murders perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in countries like Pakistan, Sudan, and Indonesia in the twelve months following 9/11 than were perpetrated by Americans against Muslims in the United States. Are you planning to publish in Arab News Daily an article about the Islamic culture of hatred for Christians and Jews? I won’t hold my breath.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Americans have gone to war against terrorism and have taken steps to secure our borders against terrorist infiltration and to identify internal terrorists. These security imperatives have resulted in occasional and regrettable errors- they have also resulted in the successful preemption of terrorist strikes. The successes by far outweigh the inconvenience to those wrongfully questioned. Before you respond that I have the luxury of not being one of the inconvenienced few, let me clearly state that every American is inconvenienced as a result of Islamist terror. I used to be able to leave my home twenty-five minutes in advance of a shuttle flight- without having purchased a ticket- and in that time drive to the airport, park, purchase a ticket, and board the flight without having to hurry. This scenario is but a fantasy in the aftermath of 9/11 when passing through security can take an hour. Whenever I find myself waiting in an airport security line, I feel angry about the imposition and I think about the underlying reason why the line exists in the first place. It isn’t because we have a problem with grandmothers from Minnesota sneaking shoe bombs onto airplanes; it isn’t because Buddhist monks have been hiding box cutters under their saffron robes; it isn’t because Christians have been attempting to fly airplanes into the Grand Mosque in Mecca; and it isn’t because Zoroastrians have been preaching bigotry and world domination in Friday sermons. It is because nineteen Muslims, with support from a dispersed network of Islamist organizations (themselves financed by Muslims around the world), murdered thousands of innocents in the clearest possible declaration of war against Western civilization.
I conceded above that wrongful questioning and detention is regrettable in America. It is important to note that wrongful questioning and detainment are standard operating procedures in the world’s Islamic republics. Having said as much, consider just a few of the reasons why Americans are understandably suspicious about Islam’s claim to be a religion of peace.
- Have you heard of Daniel Pearl, the American news reporter who was murdered by Muslims in Pakistan?
- Have you heard of Paul Johnson, the American contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Saudi Arabia?
- Have you heard of Fabrizio Quattrocci, the Italian contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Kim Sun Il, the South Korean contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Keith Maupin, the American Army specialist who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Nick Berg, the American contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Richard Reid, the British Muslim who attempted to blow up a passenger airplane headed for America?
- Have you heard of Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj, the Muslims who murdered six people in the first World Trade Center attack?
- Have you heard of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric who preached hatred at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, masterminded the first World Trade Center attack and the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and planned to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak?
I could add much to this list, but a story that came to my attention today will serve as a much better illustration of the problem the United States faces. The Womens Wall Street Journal recently posted a horrifying article by Annie Jacobsen titled, “Terror in the Skies, Again?” It recounted events that occurred during a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles where 14 Middle Eastern men seem to have conducted an in-flight practice session in collective bomb making. Passengers on the flight were terrified by the obviously suspicious conduct of the Middle Eastern men but all felt uncomfortable confronting them because they did not want to be considered racist. That is the true state of racial consciousness in America- better to die when the plane explodes than confront terrorists in the act of making a bomb. What is more, the article addressed the legal measure taken by the United States specifically to preclude security officials, including air marshals, from treating Middle Eastern and Asian people differently regardless of circumstance:
In researching her article, Jacobsen found a February 8, 2004 report in The Observer that the “...[United States] Transportation Security Administration issued an urgent memo detailing new threats to aviation and warning that terrorists in teams of five might be planning suicide missions to hijack commercial airliners, possibly using common items...such as cameras, modified as weapons.” She continued, “...Components of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] can be smuggled on to an aircraft, concealed in either clothing or personal carry-on items... and assembled on board. In many cases of suspicious passenger activity, incidents have taken place in the aircraft's forward lavatory.” Jacobsen asked the question, “Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?” Her answer: “Apparently not. Due to [American] rules against discrimination, it can't be done. During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that ...it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.” Jacobsen concluded, “So even if Northwest Airlines searched two of the men on board my Northwest flight, they couldn't search the other 12 because they would have already filled a government-imposed quota.”
America and the Western world bend over backwards to avoid bigotry and intolerance. Don’t believe it? How many people immigrate (a different proposition from expatriation, which is temporary) from the West to Islamic republics? Basically none, I think. Care to guess why? The answer has much to do with the institutionalization of bigotry and intolerance in most Islamic republics. We aren’t perfect -- no one is -- but living as a minority in America and the Western world is vastly better than living as a minority in any Islamic republic and most of the non-Western world. Since 9/11, the American people have behaved splendidly toward Muslims living in the United States—true, there have been random acts of violence and discrimination, but we work to bring the perpetrators to justice under existing laws. So conscious are we of the taint of racism that we have created policies that jeopardize the lives of our people by giving the benefit of the doubt to the obviously suspicious activities of Middle Eastern men as noted in Jacobsen’s story above. I am not enthusiastic about racial profiling. I have Muslim friends and colleagues who do not deserve to be singled out on the basis of race or religion. I suspect, however, that the only way to maximize the safety of all Americans is through the systematic use of profiling. You will no doubt call this hatred; I call it prudence.
Finally, I must address your ludicrous contention that “Islam is extremely tolerant of other religions.” The extreme religious tolerance to which you allude no doubt explains why Saudi Arabia forbids Christians and Jews from building churches and synagogues, arrests Christians and Jews who display their faith in public, and executes Muslims who convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism. That same extreme tolerance must be at work when Muslims in Sudan capture and sell Christians and animists into slavery. Of course, extreme tolerance can be credited when Muslims in Egypt persecute the Coptic Christian minority in their midst. I would be remiss if I failed to credit extreme tolerance as the driving force behind the slaughter of Christians by Muslims in East Timor. You will probably also agree that extreme religious tolerance on the part of the Islamic world is the very reason why the population of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries has dwindled to nearly nothing. Yes, it is the extreme religious tolerance enshrined in Islam that leads Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims to run like hell in the face of an Islamic majority.
In fact, Islam is not tolerant of Christians, Jews or any other non-Muslim religion in theological or historical terms. The Koran does label Jews, Christians and Muslims as “peoples of the book” but this has no more meaning than if they were labeled “peoples of the planet Tattooine.” In practice, today and throughout Islamic history, Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims have been ill-treated in Muslim lands. Surahs in the Koran are designated by Islamic scholars to be either Mecca surahs or Medina surahs. Those in the former category are characterized by a more tolerant tone toward Christians and Jews while surrahs in the latter category are remarkable for there intolerance of Christians and Jews. This internal contradiction is resolved by “Allah” through the doctrine of abrogation, which holds that when a contradiction exists between surahs, the later surah abrogates the earlier surah. In practice and in fact, this means that niceties such as labeling Jews, Christians and Muslims “people of the book” are abrogated by verses such as:
- “In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.” (Women – 4:101)
- “O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” (Women – 4:144)
- “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.” (The Table Spread – 5:51)
- “O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.” (Spoils of War – 8:65)
- “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah not the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until the pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (Repentance – 9:29)
- “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s-end.” (Repentance – 9:73)
- “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto him).” (Repentance – 9:123)
These verses would be dismissible as mere theological footnotes had they not served as signposts for Islamic behavior toward non-Muslims throughout Islamic history. Islamic theology is the driving force in Islamic history, and as a result Islamic history is filled with violent jihadist conquest and sword-point conversion of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. The conquests of what are today Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Portugal and Spain, amongst others, were motivated by Islam and featured unrestrained and cruel violence toward Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim conquered peoples. Once conquered, non-Muslims were subjected to dhimmitude, a contract of servitude and third-class subsistence that allowed them perilous survival solely at the whim of their Muslim neighbors. Dhimmi were not allowed to build new churches or synagogues, or repair existing ones. Dhimmi were not allowed to worship in public. Dhimmi were required to pay a tax for the privilege of retaining their faith- in India after the Mughal invasion this tax approximated one year’s earnings for the average man. Dhimmi were required to dress distinctively so as to be immediately distinguishable from Muslims—shades of later Nazi treatment of the Jews. Dhimmi were not allowed to construct buildings that were higher than those of their Muslim neighbors. Dhimmi were in all ways treated as inferior to Muslims under the law-- a fact often exploited by Muslims to steal dhimmi property. In other words, dhimmitude was, and is, a purposeful and practical means of destroying non-Muslim populations through attrition. Dhimmitude is decidedly not tolerant. As with the Koranic verses cited above, the contract of the dhimmi would be dismissable as a historical footnote were not elements of dhimmitude evident in Islamic societies around the world. Worse, the Islamist rhetoric that today emanates from so-called extremist movements demands the literal enforcement of dhimmitude against non-Muslim peoples. Their rhetoric is supported financially and otherwise by Islamic governments in countries including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan and by theological movements, chief among them Wahhabism.
I have Muslim friends who are dear to me. I find in them wonderful tolerance, humor and an openness to inquiry and discussion. They characterize what is best about human beings and what is-- without a doubt --the norm for Muslim people. One might describe them as defying the doctrine of abrogation because they are animated by the spirit of the Mecca surahs more than the Medina surrahs. Having said as much, when one scrutinizes the literal theology and the actual history of Islam, one stretches to explain it in the context of the tolerance that characterizes my Muslim friends and Muslims the world over. In fact, the actions and the rhetoric of Islamists and far too many Islamic governments are closer to a holistic reading of Islam, with reverence for the doctrine of abrogation and the Medina surahs, which is to say, not at all tolerant of non-Muslims.
You stated that the America you are reading about in the media is not the America you once knew and loved. Is the Islam of history and of recent headlines the Islam you presumably know and love today?
*Koranic quotations are taken from a translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, published in first edition by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. in 2000.
Linda Heard was kind enough to respond to my posting, "Pot Meet Kettle, The Hypocrisy of Islamic Journalism," which analyzed her article, "America's Growing Culture of Hate" published in Arab News Daily. I will post a response to her response tomorrow.
From: Linda Heard
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:45 AM
To: Publius
It may have escaped your notice but the article I wrote was specifically confined to trends in the "democratic" and "free" U.S. which wants to share its "values" with the rest of the planet, so why would I include the Arab world?
You see the Arab nations don't purport to be other than they are, but I must point out, in any case, that Islam is extremely tolerant of other religions. Indeed, it considers the believers in Islam, Judaism and Christianity as all 'peoples of the book'.
There are so many well-documented stories coming out of the U.S. right now that to many of us on the outside this is beginning to sound like mass paranoia.
Have you heard about the poor Nepalese man, recently written about in the NYT, who was jailed for three months for just taking photographs of a well-known landmark building, which just happened to house an FBI office? He was on his way back home and merely wanted snaps to show his family in Nepal. When the FBI man who initially arrested ran checks, he realised his mistake but it was too late. The man was already in the unforgiving and unrelenting system. Still the Nepali was deported.
Have you heard about the four Indian Catholic nuns with valid green cards who were recently offloaded off an aeroplane by the captain ( just because of the colour of their skin ) who later made up a story that they had been asking awkward questions of the crew when they hadn't even communicated with the crew?
Have you heard about the American convert, mother of three children formerly married to an Iranian, who suddenly found her house running with FBI and IRS. They held a gun to the head of her 10 year old son, ransacked the place and took away her Qu'ran and prayer books, saying they were investigating her taxes!!!
And just recently I read a story in the Guardian about a British journalist married to an American who travelled to the U.S. as she had done tens of times before. This time was different however. All of a sudden when she was asked what she did for a living and honestly answered 'journalist' she was taken off, put in a cell, and left without food. She asked for a cup of tea and was told this wasn't allowed. The people she encountered during this detention were rude and threatening. Many hours later she was deported back to England. Her crime? Not obtaining a media visa, which had never been required of her before.
Did you hear about the Syrian-born Canadian, who when transiting through the U.S., was interrogated and sent to Syria where he was persona non grata and ended up in jail?
I don't know what is going on in your country, but whatever it is, it doesn't sound like the America I once knew and loved. Sorry!
Linda Heard
More on Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" lies.
Writing in the New York Times yesterday, William Safire characterized "Oil For Fraud" as, "the largest financial rip-off in history." National Review today published Claudia Rosett's recent testimony before Congress on the subject. Both are worth reading.
Wu Chuntao and Chen Guidi are authors of a bestselling book about corruption in rural China. "An Investigation of China's Peasantry" documents the real stories of peasants in rural China who fought against corrupt local politicians and lost their lives in the process. The New York Times today described one such story of a farmer, "... named Ding Zuoming, and his decade-long campaign to enforce central government directives limiting taxes and fees. Although the Beijing authorities reviewed and approved his complaints, the local police found an excuse to arrest him, the book says. They beat him to death in custody."
The book is unusual in China because it provides the names of the corrupt politicians and of witnesses to their corruption. The Times reported that the book's government-owned publisher was ordered to cease publication by propaganda authorities at about the time its popular appeal became apparent. The Times also wrote that senior leaders in the Chinese Communist Party seem to be backing a libel suit filed against the authors. Chinese justice being an oxymoron, party support for a lawsuit usually means that the defendants are certain to lose.
The Times quoted Chen Xiwen, a government policy maker and, "... the man considered China's foremost rural policy expert," as saying, "My impression is that the book shows how illegal fees and tax policies can lead to some terrible incidents, like injuries and even death... The main incidents to my knowledge are basically factual, and the central government has already done some reports on these matters." Xiwen told the Times that, "... he had bought two copies [of the book], one for the office and the other to keep at home." He added that, "If it were really as bad as they say, then every peasant would be protesting constantly."
The last comment defies comprehension. After reading a book about individual peasants who were killed for fighting corruption, the foremost rural policy expert in the CCP commented that if it were really so bad there would be mass protests. Of course, the last time China experienced mass protest was in 1989, and despite violent efforts to erase the memory from history, the world and the Chinese people remember that on June 4, the CCP massacred thousands in Tiananmen Square. Xiwen is obtuse or a coward. In either case his chilling message is that to protest individually is deadly and to mass protest is deadly- but to not protest at all is a sign that things are basically well.
The Guardian yesterday published a fawning profile of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, describing him as, "a complex, international figure, whose religious pronouncements address the dilemmas confronting Muslims in the modern world." Al-Qaradawi is in the headlines because, while in London to convene the European Council for Fatwa and Research and announce the establishment of the International Council of Clerics, he is being monitored by the government for evidence of hate speech.
While the Guardian frantically spins words to portray al-Qaradawi as a nuanced Islamic jurist rather than a slick Islamist, Armies of Liberation, Daimnation, Mick Hartley, Solomnia, and MEMRI give a decidedly more accurate picture of his global activities in the Islamist war against tolerance and plurality.
Major decisions made by the Bush administration and military commanders in the war against terror that I question include the conduct of battle at Tora Bora and the pullback and eventual withdrawal of troops from Fallujah (yes, there are other smaller decisions that merit rethinking but Tora Bora and Fallujah have bitten back). In both cases, the United States chose not to fully engage the enemy- instead providing air and logistical support for proxies who were to assume responsibility for combat.
It is thought by many that Tora Bora represented our best chance to capture or kill Osam bin Laden (I am not counting the opportunities squandered by Bill Clinton and his inept security team). Instead, our fighting allies in Tora Bora allowed many al Qaeda soldiers- among whom may have been bin Laden- to escape and fight another day. In Fallujah, complex political and cultural considerations placed responsibility for policing the city in local hands- a solution that has resulted in a breeding ground for terror.
The New York Times today reported that Fallujah has become a safe haven for Islamists, former Baathists, and other disaffected rabble seeking to end Iraq's march toward representative government. Rather than pressing into the city at the height of the conflict, America reached agreement with Fallujah locals allowing an Iraqi militia to police the city and precluding an American presence. The utter ineffectiveness of the Iraqi militia created a vacum that was filled by so-called insurgents who have reached critical mass and now control the city. The Times wrote that Iraqi official, "... say the government in Falluja has been effectively replaced by a group of insurgent leaders, many of them Islamist extremists, who dominate most decisions affecting the city." It continued, "Former members of the Baath Party are using the city as a base to regroup, and recently held a meeting to plot a strategy to return to power."
An uncontrollable Fallujah that exports terror to the rest of the country poses a grave threat to the new government of Iraq. I do not pretend to have a comrehensive understanding of Iraqi culture and politics, and I do have confidence in the new Iraqi government's capabilities in this regard. Nonetheless, a brokered solution seems remote. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, the new government will have to deal with the problem. It is wishful thinking to expect that an Iraqi force of sufficient size and competence will exist any time soon. This leaves the First Marine Expeditionary Force, which is perfectly capable of completing the job- if allowed to do so.
There was bitterness and anger amongst the Marines when they were pulled back and eventually withdrawn- anger because their comrades died in a battle they were not allowed to finish. The Times quoted Gunnery Sgt. Mark Kline, a Marine serving in the vicinity of Fallujah, "The 10 marines that died - those were wasted lives, because we didn't finish the job," he said. "Falluja is a time bomb." The Times continued, "Like most of his comrades, Sergeant Kline said he was convinced that the quiet in Falluja is a fake peace that will have to be dealt with soon enough."
One hopes that this time around America and Iraq will let the Marines be Marines. If so, Islamists the world over will take note of our resolve. If so, the job in Fallujah will be finished and significant numbers of Islamists and terrorists will not live to fight another day.
The Arab News Daily yesterday published an article by Linda Heard that twists all reality to argue that a culture of hatred against Muslims is growing in America. Heard's rant seems to be based entirely on press releases issued by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)- a poor choice of sourcing. It is well documented, by Anti-CAIR for example, that CAIR, originally funded by Saudi Arabia for the purpose of spreading Islam in America, has Islamist sympathies and a ferocious intolerance for those who question the supposedly peaceful nature of Islam.
In the opening paragraph of her article, Heard mentions "radio talk show host Jay Severin who... claimed that Muslims want to take over America even if it takes centuries, adding “I’ve got an idea. Let’s all kill Muslims”. Heard writes, "Amazingly Severin is still in his job, although he has been forced to apologize on air." I haven't the faintest idea who Jay Severin is, but the latter quotation, "Let's all kill Muslims" is intolerable regardless of context. But what of his first assertion that, "Muslims want to take over America even if it takes centuries?" Heard's source for the quotations is CAIR, which includes Omar Ahmad and Ibraham Hooper amongst its founders and executive members. Ahmad once said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Hooper has been quoted as saying, "" I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." Severin would seem to be right- these are hardly the sentiments of people committed to integrating into American pluralistic society.
Given the appalling record of human rights violations in every Islamic republic round the world, Americans are well advised to fight the import of Islamism- not through violent reprisals against Muslims in the United States but through intellectual clarity. Most Muslims in America are committed to pluralism and tolerance. Those Muslims who would impose Islamic law on America, however, are a threat to our freedom. We can see examples of the intolerance they favor in the violent bigotry and racism that permeates society in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Agents of Islamism, CAIR included, should be challenged and discredited in their every attempt to spread their flavor of Islam. This is free speech, not hatred.
While it is legitimate to question the content and tone of public discourse about Islam in America, foreign based news organizations that do so should pay equal or greater attention to the content and tone of discourse regarding non-Islamic faiths in their own countries- more often than not the need for such introspection can not be underestimated. Islam and Islamic republics have little or no tolerance for public questioning and often are purposeful exporters of the intolerance practiced within their borders. This may explain why Heard is carrying water for CAIR and Saudi Arabia. America is a country where Muslims can build mosques, worship, and evangelize with the same legal and social protections enjoyed by all members of society. Contrast this with condition of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia where, for example, Christians may not build churches or worship in public, and converts from Islam to Christianity are punished as apostates under the law.
Americans cherish and make good use of the First Amendment right to speak freely. It is unfortunate and inevitable that random acts of hatred occur in diverse societies. Heard mentions a few such acts including threats and vandalism (there are lots more) but she does not mention that when they occur in America we apply the law against the perpetrators. Most of her article, however, attempts to label as hatred the free exercise of speech by assorted talk radio hosts and the Islamic scholar, Daniel Pipes, whom CAIR obsessively attacks and attempts to discredit. The free exercise of speech is not to be confused with hatred- questioning Islamic history and practice is not hateful.
Toward the end of her article, Heard mindlessly repeats the assertion that Islam is a peaceful religion. She would make better use of her time by exploring the basis for the perception in America and the West that Islam is not a religion of peace. She does not mention the fact that Islam has bloody borders. She does not mention the fact that Islam has at its theological root intolerance for non-Muslims. She does not mention the fact that countries where Islamic law prevails have, with few historical exceptions, always codified intolerance. She does not mention the undiluted hatred that spews from minbars throughout the Islamic world during Friday sermons. Finally, she ignores the fact that Saudi Arabia, the country from which the Arab News Daily originated, has institutionalized hatred as both social contract and compulsory religion, and is the world’s largest exporter of bigotry and intolerance.
John Kerry today selected as his Vice Presidential running mate, John Edwards from North Carolina. Edwards has many laudable qualities, most important among them is that he came late to politics. What better than a self-made man who pursues politics out of conviction, and what worse than the high-school class president type, who goes to college and law school in order to run for political office (think Clinton and Kerry). Edwards is likable and eloquent. He will add much, but not enough to the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Edwards will not deliver southern states for the Democrats, but may have an important impact in swing states like Pennsylvania. The Kerry/Edwards paring should result in very entertaining debates- particulary between Edwards and Vice President Cheney. But the most interesting result of the Edwards nomination is that it places him on a collision course with the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Win or lose, Edwards will emerge at some point in the future with a strong claim to a party nomination that Hillary believes is hers by right. The drama!
If proof were needed that the Church has not moved beyond the pedophilia scandal, the Washington Post reported today that the Archdiocese of Portland will file for bankruptcy because it is overwhelmed by the financial costs of settling sexual abuse claims. The Post cited pending lawsuits involving Maurice Grammond, a priest who is acused of molesting more than 50 boys. Two lawsuits in particular involve claims for more than $160 million.
The Church- my Church- must make the sincere act of contrition that it teaches all Catholics to make. The Archdiocese of Boston has set the example for penance by replacing it's Bishop, selling property and closing parishes to raise funds to compensate those who have been abused by priests like Grammond. True contrition is not without pain, but without contrition there can be no healing.
The Post quoted Grammond from a deposition taken before his death in 2002: "I'd say these children abused me. They'd dive in my lap to get sexual excitement." That such a man was a priest for long enough to molest 50 boys is inexcusable. Worse, he was not alone in his depravity and his Archdiocese was not alone in failing to prevent such systematic abuse. What price should we not bear to demonstrate faith in Christ when we have so failed our children?
What could be more satisfying than Saddam Hussein in the dock. There is much cause for optimism in the war against terrorism- Iraq has taken another step toward representative government and Hussein another step toward accountability for crimes against humanity. Both give hope to Muslims around the world and both give great pause to islamists and despots.
The government of Israel is proceeding with planning and construction of a security wall to prevent Palestinian islamists from entering Israel and detonating explosives amidst Israeli citizens. The wall will eventually stretch some 425 miles separating Palestinians from Israel along an imposed boundary. The imposition of such a boundary, absent a peaceful settlement of the land dispute between Israelis and Palestinians is unfortunate but necessary. Israel has made good faith efforts in the past several years to peacefully resolve the dispute and establish a legitimate Palestinian state. The Palestinians, or more specifically Palestinian leadership, have not responded in kind. Ehud Barach in a deal brokered by former President Bill Clinton offered Yasir Arafat approximately 98% of the land demanded by Palestinians- an offer that was met by Arafat’s walking away from the negotiating table and initiating the second intifada- a wave of bloody violence by Palestinian islamists against Israelis. The highly effective result of the second intifada and Arafat’s clear demonstration of bad faith in negotiations is the security wall.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Israel’s High Court acted on petitions filed by Palestinian villages and, “ordered that changes be made to the route of [the wall] to minimize hardships to Palestinians living in the area.” The Post today reported that Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Prime Minister, was, “prepared to move [the wall] closer to Israel where possible to avoid trapping Palestinians in fenced-in enclaves.” This is how the law should work, and this is why Israel occupies the moral high ground in the dispute. The elected Israeli government, with legal institutions that treat Palestinians and Israelis as equal under the law in such matters contrasts dramatically with the Arafat’s self-imposed government and legal vigilantism. For example, the New York Times today reported that a Palestinian accused of collaborating with Israel was machine gunned to death by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is part of Arafat's Fatah movement. The Times wrote:
“Militants had hustled Daraghmeh into the square before assembled townsfolk and told them: “This man, as you know ... gave information to Israel on the whereabouts of our fighters. What should his sentence be?”
“Execution!” roared the crowd.
The militants gunned down Daraghmeh seconds later and residents both young and old cheered and chanted around his prone, bloodied corpse.”
Sadly, the Palestinian people suffer more from their self-proclaimed leaders and the disingenuous Arabs and Muslims who “support” them than from Israel. Were Arafat the least inclined to lead his people to statehood, the issue would be resolved and Palestinians would today control their destiny. Instead, Arafat continues to loot the Palestinian people, padding his net worth estimated in hundreds of millions of dollars, and islamist organizations and the Muslim world use them as an excuse to continue the violent bigotry and racism that permeates Islam and is rooted firmly in traditions stretching back through time and empire to Muhammad himself.
The New York Times this morning reported that hundreds of thousands of people marched in Hong Kong today to protest China’s subversion of the Basic Law and refusal to allow full representative government. The protests were a continuation of efforts by Hong Kong’s besieged democracy movement to demonstrate popular support for a legislature selected by and beholden to the governed rather than sock puppets of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Freedom in Hong Kong has been substantially curtailed and often threatened by the CCP and its thugs, most recently with the arbitrary and illegal rewriting of the Basic Law to preclude open elections in 2007, but also in attempts to legislate “anti-subversion” statutes, and in death threats to democracy friendly talk show hosts and activists.
The fight for freedom will not die despite the CCP’s efforts to crush it by jackboot or intrigue. In 1989 the CCP massacred hundreds of people in Tiananmen Square- it has since sought to erase all memory of the incident. Freedom and democracy have taken root amongst the Chinese people, and Tiananmen Square is openly remembered in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Voters there will not surrender the franchise to mass murdering kleptocrats masquerading as communists- not without a fight.