Levitt Letter Extra News

The Taliban’s former spokesman is now a Yale student. Anyone see a problem with that?

By John Fund
www.opinionjournal.com

Never has an article made me blink with astonishment as much as when I read in the Feb. 27 New York Times magazine that Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, is now studying at Yale on a U.S. student visa. This is taking the obsession that U.S. universities have with promoting diversity a bit too far.

Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last week Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard when it became clear he would lose a no-confidence vote held by politically correct faculty members furious at his efforts to allow ROTC on campus, his opposition to a drive to have Harvard divest itself of corporate investments in Israel, and his efforts to make professors work harder. Now Yale is giving a first-class education to an erstwhile high official in one of the most evil regimes of the latter half of the 20th century–the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.

“In some ways,” Mr. Rahmatullah told The New York Times. “I’m the luckiest person in the world. I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale.” One of the courses he has taken is called Terrorism—Past, Present and Future.

Many foreign readers of the Times will no doubt snicker at the revelation that naive Yale administrators scrambled to admit Mr. Rahmatullah. The Times reported that Yale “had another foreigner of Rahmatullah’s caliber apply for special-student status.” Richard Shaw, Yale’s dean of undergraduate admissions, told the Times that “we lost him to Harvard,” and “I didn’t want that to happen again.”

By ROBERT WIELAARD Associated Press

The European Union agreed on February 27 to grant $143 million in urgent aid to the Palestinians before a government led by the Islamic militant group Hamas takes power, a move aimed at preventing a financial collapse that could add to the chaos in the Middle East.But the EU kept silent on what it would do once Hamas assumes control of the Palestinian government. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the aid was required to avoid “economic chaos” from paralyzing the Palestinian Authority. It was also designed to show European support for the Palestinians remains undiminished at least until Hamas establishes its control.

The EU’s decision was welcomed by the U.S. State Department. ”It is a sign that we are all working together,” spokesman Adam Ereli >said in Washington. “We are all working together to prevent a collapse of the interim (Palestinian Authority) government and to support the Palestinian people.” 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked to senior EU officials Sunday, he said. The Bush administration, which is not providing assistance to the Palestinian Authority this year, is due to announce shortly whether it will contribute to Palestinian projects. Both the European Union and the United States have ruled out assistance to a Hamas-led government, which will succeed the interim government under Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Ereli said. 

Hamas, which both the United States and the EU consider a terrorist organization, won a surprise victory in the Jan. 25 elections and has already taken control of the Palestinian parliament. Abbas has asked the group to form the next government. Washington is seeking support from Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt for a financial boycott of Hamas. Rice, however, found little backing for that idea on a recent tour of the region.

There is concern the Palestinian Authority will collapse without international aid and that Iran could fill any funding gap, further radicalizing the Palestinians and reducing Western influence. For its part, the EU is taking a wait-and-see attitude. ”We need to have some patience now” to allow for government formation talks, said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. “Later on, we’ll have to decide what comes next.”

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country now holds the EU presidency, said the $143 million in aid will not change the EU demand that Hamas must “accept the principles of nonviolence, recognize Israel’s right to exist” and honor existing accords that the Palestinians and Israel have reached over the years. 

Officials said the emergency EU aid package designed to tide the Palestinian Authority over comprises: $48 million to pay for the Authority’s energy and other essential utility bills. These bills will be paid by the EU directly to the utilities, based on invoices validated by an international audit firm. $76 million for health and education projects to be paid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides education, health care, social services and emergency aid for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. $21 million for salaries of Palestinian Authority workers. This money will come from $83 million the EU paid into a World Bank trust fund in 2005, only half of which was spent as the Palestinian Authority missed key good governance goals last year.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the EU aid package shows “Europe supports Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.” Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, welcomed the gesture. He said it showed the failure of “American-Israeli efforts to tighten the economic siege on the Palestinians and the incoming government. We consider the EU decision to resume transferring the funds as a step >in the right direction,” he said. “We in Hamas welcome any foreign aid >as long as it’s not conditional money.” Ferrero-Waldner said emergency aid was urgently needed after Israel’s decision to withhold $50 million a month in tax funds following Hamas’ victory. She urged other donors, especially Arab nations, to step forward. 

The EU is considering diverting aid from a Hamas-led government to the office of the more moderate president, Abbas. But there are fears this may trigger a backlash from voters who overwhelming rejected Abbas’ Fatah movement. Abbas has said he will resign if peace talks with Israel remain stalled but he urged the international community to give Hamas a chance. 

It seems that Zola may be getting promoted to the head office. The good news, barring a medical miracle, is that he will meet our Lord before the rest of us. The bad news is that we—Zola’s staff, friends, supporters and even some enemies—will miss him terribly… worse than we can begin to say.

 On February 10, Zola had the first symptom of cancer, which has spread from his left lung to his liver and brain. He has already begun treatment and is seeking your prayers that he might become a poster child for modern cancer treatment. To hedge his bet, however, he is doubling his efforts to produce extra TV programs and create more informative and outspoken newsletters than ever. What a soldier’s testimonial—to stay at his post until called away by Yeshua!

Happy is the man whose work is his play. Zola requests that rather than send him cards or flowers, that you show your concern by donating to this ministry to be used for the Lord’s work.

In His service,

Mark Levitt (Zola’s son)

By Dennis Prager
www.jewishworldreview.com

American news media have suffered in recent years. Thanks to the Internet and talk radio, millions of Americans have ceased relying on The New York Times and CNN for their written and televised news.

But it is difficult to recall a greater blow to the credibility of American news media than their near-universal refusal to publish the Mohammed cartoons originally published in a Danish newspaper that have brought about worldwide Muslim protests.

This loss of credibility owes to two factors: dishonesty and cowardice.

Everyone and his mother knows why the networks and the print journals haven’t shown the cartoons — they fear Muslims blowing up their buildings and stabbing their editors to death. The only people who deny this are the news media. They all claim that they won’t show the cartoons because of sensitivity to Muslim feelings.

Which brings us to the other reason for the latest blow to the news media’s credibility: They are lying to us. If some politicians were telling lies as blatantly as the news media are now, the media would be having a field day exposing those politicians and calling for their removal from office. But, alas, what TV news station will criticize another TV news station? And what newspaper or magazine will criticize another newspaper or magazine?

So, without anyone in the media holding them accountable, the news media continue to believe they can fool nearly all the people all the time when they say they are not publishing the cartoons out of respect for Muslim sensibilities.

Why is this false?

First, major papers in virtually every European country have published the cartoons. It is inconceivable that European papers are less concerned with Muslim sensibilities than American media are. If anything, in Europe they are more pro-Muslim given their anti-Israel and anti-American views and given that they live in countries with far greater numbers of Muslims than live in America.

Second, the reason to publish the cartoons is not to offend Muslims; it is to explain the most significant current news event in the world. How can anyone understand the Islamic riots without having seen the cartoons that triggered them? If millions of Christians rioted after cartoons were published in the Muslim world, does anyone doubt that the Western press would publish them, or that it had the obligation to do so?

The argument that people can see the cartoons on the Internet is specious. Anyone could see the photos of the abuse of Arab prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison on the Internet, yet the news media presented these photos day after day for weeks.

Third, the American press has routinely published cartoons and pictures that insult Christians and Jews. The Los Angeles Times published a cartoon depicting the stones of the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple, the holiest site to Jews, as spelling out the word “HATE” and showing a religious Jew bowing down before it. And what newspaper did not publish a photo of “Piss Christ,” the Andres Serrano work of “art” depicting a crucifix in the artist’s urine?

American newspapers “insult” every group whenever they feel like it, but no one riots, burns and kills because of it.

Fourth, the ban on depicting Mohammed applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims. It is remarkable that American newspapers, so frightened of any breakdown between church and state, are suddenly guided by Muslim religious prohibitions.

Fifth, the argument that publishing the images would inflame Muslims’ passions is another cover up for cowardice. No American newspaper or TV news show exhibited the slightest concern with inflaming Muslim passions when they endlessly published and depicted Abu Ghraib abuse photos.

If the liberal news media in America — conservative Fox News and The Weekly Standard have shown the cartoons — admitted they feared being hurt if they showed the cartoons, one would have respect for their honesty, if not their courage. But the liberal news media’s lack of courage coupled with their dishonest justifications make for a devastating commentary on American news media.

One should not be surprised. A few years ago, New York Times foreign affairs reporter John Burns reported — to his great credit — that some of the most prestigious American news organizations had made a deal with Saddam Hussein not to report negatively about his regime in exchange for being allowed to have a Baghdad news bureau.

When it comes to taking on conservatives, Catholics, Evangelicals and the like, liberal news media are Supermen. When it comes to confronting real evil, however, the news media are Mickey Mouse.

By: Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.com

The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn’t that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don’t go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That’s a “dog bites man” story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot-lunch menu and the birth notices.

After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers’ relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.

The “offense to Islam” ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.

So it’s not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be “Offended Muslims Remain Calm.”

What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won’t show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure “The Boondocks” without complaint. Where’s the justice here?

Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim backside kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.

The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)

Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but you can’t take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb?

If you don’t want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don’t point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9-11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that’s offensive. How about “camel jockey”? What? Now what’d I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?

In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Koran’s alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I’ve got documentation to back that up!

Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on “The View” have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.

McClellan said: “We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support.”

We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than “hold Syria responsible” for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish Embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.

Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved? Liberals complain about “unilateral action,” but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it’s almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!

Written by Justin Darr
www.chronwatch.com

Islam is like the neighbor everyone has that people say “is alright once you get to know him.” The more you “get to know him,” however, the more it seems that your first impression was correct. A jerk is a jerk. No matter how many times you see the guy place his trash cans neatly at the end of the drive on time for the Tuesday pick up, the silent aggressive stares let you know that this guy has is something dysfunctional going on that sooner or later will erupt into big problems.

Usually, you just try to ignore these people as long as possible, just a simple “Hello,” or wave on the way to work. Then comes the day when your son’s football flies over the fence and, wham! The guy picks up the ball and locks it in his garage.

Now, you have the unpleasant task of going over and confronting this idiot about why he cannot exist by the rules of common civility that have served us so well for generations, risking the chance of the guy acting like the moron he is an chasing you across the yard with a garden rake.

It is not really that hard of a decision. Experience teaches that such blowhards usually have nothing to back up their words other than a glass chin and big mouth. So, you accept the risk because you understand the consequences of your inaction will lead to even grander displays of indecorousness by your neighbor and spending the rest of your life with your son wondering if the zipper is on the front or side of your pants.

This is the situation the western world faces with Islam. For a “religion of peace,” Islam sure seems to have a mean streak. The facts regarding Islamic society’s apparent inability to peacefully coexist with its non-Muslim neighbors, and endless litany of hatred and bloodlust spewed by its religious leaders toward anyone who happens to disagree with them, has left nothing to conclude except that Islam makes anything but a good neighbor.

Here is a quick test to see my point. Do a survey of all the areas of the world counting sizable Muslim populations abutting large non-Muslim populations that are NOT in a near perpetual state of violent conflict. Hope you have one hand ready.

In other areas, where Muslims are not actively killing those around them, they choose to promote their agendas by making thinly veiled threats of unless others stop “provoking” them, they will be unable to stop from erupting the simmering violence that lurks just under the surface of their communities. This is an attempt to take advantage of the western world’s obsession with political correctness where it is far easier to give into demands, no matter how ridiculous, than deal with the fools who are making them and be declared “insensitive.” However, no matter what the excuses or justifications, the actions of many Muslim leaders amount to low intensity terrorism.

Nothing demonstrates this point better than the current situations with the Muslim world’s vicious overreaction to a few political cartoons out of Europe depicting the prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban, and the breakdown of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear fuel enrichment program.

Curiously, despite the differences in these situations, the Muslims involved are using the same low intensity terrorist tactics to achieve their ends.

In Europe, cartoonists have fled into hiding in fear of their lives as Muslims have marauded through hotels in the Gaza Strip searching for Westerners to kidnap, and protestors dressed as suicide bombers, prayed for further terrorist attacks in western civilians, and carried signs saying, “Freedom Go to Hell,” “Europe You Will Pay, Your 3/11 Is on the Way,” and “Butcher Those Who Insult Islam,” in London, England.

In Iran, 1979 American Embassy terrorist leader now turned Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is threatening to cut off all foreign oil exports, “wipe Israel off the map,” launch insurgent attacks into Iraq and Afghanistan, and restart full uranium enrichment efforts and in the wake of the IAEA referring Iran to the Security Council.

In both cases, the responses enormously outweigh the initial “provocation.”

Iran is threatening to destroy the world economy and destabilize the entire Middle East just because we understand that a nation that has spent its entire history supporting and engaging in terrorism has no business possessing highly enriched uranium for any reason.

And, Muslims around the world are threatening us with widespread violence if we do not toss aside our most cherished freedoms and silence a few cartoonists who noticed that the vast majority of terrorists just happen to be emulating the words and deeds of Mohammad.

The disproportionate nature of these responses is less of a reaction to any actual offense that may have occurred than it is an attempt to intimidate those who might dare to affront or oppose Islam in the future. In both cases the message is clear: If you ever cross us again, you will be responsible for the violence that ensues.

There is no clearer definition of low intensity terrorism than these heavy-handed attempts to blackmail the free world.

The civilized world is now faced with a choice. Do we allow ourselves to be intimidated by Islam’s low intensity terrorism because we feel that it is a better alternative than the more overt terrorism so many Muslims love, sacrificing our freedom and security in the process? Or, do we decide to stand up for what we know is right?

I do not know about you, but I think it is time to go get our football.

By Daniel Pipes
www.frontpagemag.com

The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise; Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.

More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy an immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones; are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?

Germany’s Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.

The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, … they’re asking for my submission.”

Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly calls on the free world to stand “resolutely with Denmark.” The informative Brussels Journal asserts, “We are all Danes now.”

Some governments get it:

• Norway: “we will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers print,” commented Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
• Germany: “Why should the German government apologize [for German papers publishing the cartoons]? This is an expression of press freedom,” said Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble.
• France: “Political cartoons are by nature excessive. And I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship,” commented Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

Other governments wrongly apologized:

• Poland: “the bounds of properly conceived freedom of expression have been overstepped,” stated Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz.
• United Kingdom: “the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong,” said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
• New Zealand: “gratuitously offensive,” Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton called the cartoons.
• United States: “Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,” said State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus.

Strangely, as “Old Europe” finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the country’s leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially; and on two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.

In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realism novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist’s life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both “offensive.” Secretary of State James A. Baker III termed the edict merely “regrettable.”

Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the U.S. government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question “either sick or … evil” and stated that “She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam.” The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst; as I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I “found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic.”

Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).

Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.

by James D. Tabor

www.unitedisrael.org

The standard textbook wisdom that we all learned from grade school on up is that the Americas were discovered by the Europeans either in 1492 by Columbus, or perhaps even a few hundred years earlier by the Vikings. There seems to be an aversion among the establishment historians to even consider the idea that ancient Mediterranean peoples might have traveled to the Americas in the centuries before our era. Except for certain “fringe” scholarship, particularly promoted by Mormon historians, the standard view is considered indisputable. The very idea that “primitive” peoples from Cyprus, Phoenicia, Greece, or Iberia had the sailing sophistication to cross the Atlantic is thought to be improbable if not absurd.

There are a few notable exceptions. Dr. Cyrus Gordon, one of the greatest living historians of ancient Near Eastern civilizations has promoted the idea that such peoples reached the New World for the past several decades. Actually, when one digs around a bit, it turns out that the historical and archaeological evidence is quite impressive. It has been well documented by Barry Fell in his major study, America B.C. (New York: Pocket Books, 1989).

One of the most fascinating sites Dr. Fell surveys is located south of Albuquerque, New Mexico, a few miles west of a little town called Los Lunas. The site has been known as “Mystery Mountain” by the locals for many years. At the foot of a mini-Masada like natural plateau there is an inscription written in paleo-Hebrew. The inscription contains a slightly abridged version of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments. Anyone who is familiar with the Hebrew language, and the well-established ancient Hebrew alphabet used prior to the Common Era, can easily read this inscription.

The question is—how did it get there? Is it a fraud, perpetrated by some pranksters for amusement purposes? If so, it could not be much older than this century since the paleo-Hebrew alphabet was only discovered from archaeological inscriptions in the Middle East over the past 100 years. Or, is it possible that it was put there much earlier, by Jews or Israelites who had settled in the area we know as New Mexico when paleo-Hebrew was in common use—that is in the centuries B.C.E. To even suggest such an idea, for most, is to immediately dismiss it. However, when the Los Lunas inscription is placed in the wider context of an abundant amount of evidence, such as that presented by Dr. Fell, that ancient Mediterranean peoples did visit the New World, it becomes not only plausible but perhaps the only logical explanation for the existence of this text.

In September, 1996 I visited the Los Lunas site with a group of associates for an initial survey of the evidence. I have also interviewed Prof. Frank Hibben, local historian and archaeologist from the University of New Mexico, who is convinced the inscription is ancient and thus authentic. He reports that he first saw the text in 1933. At the time it was covered with lichen and patination and was hardly visible. He was taken to the site by a guide who had seen it as a boy, back in the 1880s. Thus we have eye-witness evidence, going back over a hundred years, that the inscription existed. This alone is impressive, since it is rather preposterous to imagine some pranksters or forgers operating with a knowledge of paleo-Hebrew in the late 1800s, when this ancient alphabet was not even fully known to the scholars.

Associated with the inscription is the mountain itself, which shows evidence of fortification and ancient habitation, whether by native Americans or whomever. The Decalogue inscription is located at the foot of the mountain, on the north, at the only accessible pathway going up. The top of the mountain is a flat plateau with many ruins. The whole area is covered with drawings on rocks called petroglyphs. One of the most interesting of these petroglyphs is what appears to be a sky-map, laid out on a flat rock, recording the positions of the planets and constellations during a solar eclipse. Researcher David Deal, to whom we owe credit for a drawing of the site, has identified the eclipse astronomically as occurring on September 15, 107 B. C. E. I have run that date on a sophisticated computer calendar that does conversions to the ancient Hebrew calendar and surprisingly, that date turns out to fall on Tishri 1st, or Rosh HaShanah of that year—107 B.C.E.! Mr. Deal, who first did the astronomical calculations, was not even aware of this correlation. It might well be the case that the ancient Israelites who lived on this mountain, and left their inscription of the Ten Commandments at the “Gate” of the camp, also recorded an eclipse that happened to fall on a very important day in their sacred calendar.

I have become tentatively convinced that the Los Lunas inscription offers solid evidence that ancient Israelites explored and settled in the New World in the centuries before the Common Era. Whether we can precisely date this encampment, based on Mr. Deal’s astronomical evidence, remains in discussion. However, I have little doubt, nor does Dr. Gordon, who is one of the world experts on ancient inscriptions, that the text itself is authentic and was written sometime B.C.E. Beyond this we can not go at this point in time. What is needed is a rigorous archaeological examination of the whole mountain and its human artifacts. It was obvious to us, even from our brief survey last Fall, that the site has been inhabited by successive peoples. We would have to have coin and pottery evidence to more precisely identify these remains and correlate them, if possible, with the inscription itself. The author is in the process of investigating possibilities for just such an investigation, led by qualified experts in archaeology. 

By Charles Krauthammer
www.washingtonpost.com

As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizations, while endorsing the demonstrators’ sense of grievance and sharing their outrage, speak out against using violence as a vehicle of expression. Their Western counterparts — intellectuals, including most of the major newspapers in the United States — are similarly balanced: While, of course, endorsing the principle of free expression, they criticize the Danish newspaper for abusing that right by publishing offensive cartoons, and they declare themselves opposed, in the name of religious sensitivity, to doing the same.

God save us from the voices of reason.

What passes for moderation in the Islamic community — “I share your rage but don’t torch that embassy” — is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.

Have any of these “moderates” ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don’t are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.

And these “moderates” are aided and abetted by Western “moderates” who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and celebrate the “Piss Christ” (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad.

Had they not been so hypocritical, one might defend their refusal to republish these cartoons on the grounds that news value can sometimes be trumped by good taste and sensitivity. After all, on grounds of basic decency, American newspapers generally — and correctly — do not publish pictures of dead bodies, whatever their news value.

There is a “sensitivity” argument for not having published the cartoons in the first place, back in September when they first appeared in that Danish newspaper. But it is not September. It is February. The cartoons have been published, and the newspaper, the publishers and Denmark itself have come under savage attack. After multiple arsons, devastating boycotts, and threats to cut off hands and heads, the issue is no longer news value, i.e., whether a newspaper needs to publish them to inform the audience about what is going on. The issue now is solidarity.

The mob is trying to dictate to Western newspapers, indeed Western governments, what is a legitimate subject for discussion and caricature. The cartoons do not begin to approach the artistic level of Salman Rushdie’s prose, but that’s not the point. The point is who decides what can be said and what can be drawn within the precincts of what we quaintly think of as the free world.

The mob has turned this into a test case for freedom of speech in the West. The German, French and Italian newspapers that republished these cartoons did so not to inform but to defy — to declare that they will not be intimidated by the mob.

What is at issue is fear. The unspoken reason many newspapers do not want to republish is not sensitivity but simple fear. They know what happened to Theo van Gogh, who made a film about the Islamic treatment of women and got a knife through the chest with an Islamist manifesto attached.

The worldwide riots and burnings are instruments of intimidation, reminders of van Gogh’s fate. The Islamic “moderates” are the mob’s agents and interpreters, warning us not to do this again.

And the Western “moderates” are their terrified collaborators who say: Don’t worry, we won’t. It’s those Danes. We’re clean. Spare us. Please.

By SALIM MANSUR
Toronto Sun

The world, perhaps, is exhausted with trying to understand what malady torments some Muslims to behave insanely. And with their propensity to violence as in the latest saga over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

How does one explain how cartoons — however objectionable to religious sensibility — can spark violence in the name of Islam, which means peace?

Or, for that matter, why the late Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Khomeini, in February 1989, pronounced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie for his novel, The Satanic Verses, that alluded allegorically to the Prophet Mohammed.

Experts have engaged for some time in explaining contemporary Muslim politics, as the historian Bernard Lewis does in his book, What Went Wrong? Such efforts continue in the hope of making sense of this behavior that bewilders non-Muslims.

But even as Muslims insist their faith-tradition is one of peace, the conduct of at least a considerable segment of the Muslim population contradicts their public faith.

Some writers such as Ibn Warraq, a pseudonym, suggest the problem with Muslim conduct is inherent in Islam.

They contend Muslim violence is symptomatic of an intolerant religion.

But the Koran, Islam’s sacred text, calls upon its readers to engage in introspection. Muslims who engage in what the Koran invites them to do would eschew violence as a requisite of their faith.

Why, then, is there such a disconnect between what Muslims insist their faith represents and the conduct of some Muslims, as we witness it in recent times?

For a plausible figurative explanation consider the following: Chronologically speaking Islam is in its 15th century, Christianity in its 21st and Judaism in its 58th.

We might express the ages of these three faith-traditions in terms of human life span, with Islam being in its adolescent years, Christianity having entered into its adult years and Judaism being well past its middle age.

Several centuries ago when Christianity was about the same age as Islam is today, it too often showed characteristics of adolescents lacking in introspection, readily prone to committing violence and in taking offense, behaving uncharitably toward others and being self-righteous.

The remarkable achievement of Judaism, from the perspective of its relatively long life, is survival against terrible odds.

This has provided Judaism with the wisdom of respectful coexistence with other faith traditions.

What we view in the behavior of radical Muslims as bewildering — people who have, for instance, dynamited the Buddha statues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, gutted churches, repeatedly insulted people of other faiths — is consistent with the conduct of an adolescent, yet to grow up and understand that actions have consequences.

Not all Muslims are adolescents, or engage in violence and reprehensible behavior. But it is undeniable that Muslims who indulge in violence, irrespective of the reasons they offer, have not been effectively repudiated and checked by the Muslim majority.

The majority then, troubled and saddened as it is with watching its faith-tradition wrecked by its religious compatriots, is not entirely blameless.

This explanation of mentality in terms of age would suggest that many Muslims are yet to mature and grasp the precepts of their own faith-tradition.

Those who did — for example the little-known Sufis who seek the hidden treasure of Islam within their hearts and minds — were often abused by fanatics, reflecting the mindlessness of adolescents.

This also suggests the world must find the means to adequately deal with those Muslims who behave as destructive adolescents, until they grow up and become responsible.