Levitt Letter Extra News

By George Will, www.JewishWorldReview.com

JERUSALEM — In the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of U.S. population, that would be 42,000e 42,000
English: World English Bible - WEB
Izbrano poglavje ne obstaja! Štetje svetopisemskih vrstic se začne z ¹! Vrstica ⁰ ne obstaja!

WP-Bible plugin, approaching the toll of America’s eight years in Vietnam. During the onslaught, which began ten Septembers ago, Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner. Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders cannot, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take “risks for peace.”

During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s July visit to Washington, Barack Obama praised him as “willing to take risks for peace.” There was a time when that meant swapping “land for peace” — Israel sacrificing something tangible and irrecoverable, strategic depth, in exchange for something intangible and perishable, promises of diplomatic normality.

Strategic depth matters in a nation where almost everyone is or has been a soldier, so society cannot function for long with the nation fully mobilized. Also, before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel within the borders established by the 1949 armistice was in one place just nine miles wide, a fact that moved George W. Bush to say: In Texas we have driveways that long. Israel exchanged a lot of land to achieve a chilly peace with Egypt, yielding the Sinai, which is almost three times larger than Israel and was 89 percent of the land captured in the process of repelling the 1967 aggression.

The intifada was launched by the late Yasser Arafat — terrorist and Nobel Peace Prize winner — after the July 2000 Camp David meeting, during which then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to cede control of all of Gaza and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with small swaps of land to accommodate the growth of Jerusalem suburbs just across the 1949 armistice line.

Israelis are famously fractious, but the intifada produced among them a consensus that the most any government of theirs could offer without forfeiting domestic support is less than any Palestinian interlocutor would demand. Furthermore, the intifada was part of a pattern. As in 1936 and 1947, talk about partition prompted Arab violence.

In 1936, when the British administered Palestine, the Peel Commission concluded that there was “an irrepressible conflict” — a phrase coined by an American historian to describe the U.S. Civil War — “between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country.” And: “Neither of the two national ideals permits” a combination “in the service of a single state.” The commission recommended “a surgical operation” — partition. What followed was the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended a partition plan. Israel accepted the recommendation. On Nov. 30, Israel was attacked.

Palestine has a seemingly limitless capacity for eliciting nonsense from afar, as it did recently when British Prime Minister David Cameron referred to Gaza as a “prison camp.” In a sense it is, but not in the sense Cameron intended. His implication was that Israel is the cruel jailer. Gaza’s actual misfortune is to be under the iron fist of Hamas, a terrorist organization.

In May, a flotilla launched from Turkey approached Gaza in order to provoke a confrontation with Israel, which, like Egypt, administers a blockade to prevent arms from reaching Hamas. The flotilla’s pretense was humanitarian relief for Gaza — where the infant mortality rate is lower and life expectancy is higher than in Turkey.

Israelis younger than 50 have no memory of their nation within the 1967 borders set by the 1949 armistice that ended the War of Independence. The rest of the world seems to have no memory at all concerning the intersecting histories of Palestine and the Jewish people.

The creation of Israel did not involve the destruction of a Palestinian state, there having been no such state since the Romans arrived. And if the Jewish percentage of the world’s population were today what it was when the Romans ruled Palestine, there would be 200 million Jews. After a uniquely hazardous passage through two millennia without a homeland, there are 13 million Jews.

In the 62 years since this homeland was founded on one-sixth of 1 percent of the land of what is carelessly and inaccurately called “the Arab world,” Israelis have never known an hour of real peace. Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.

By Phyllis Chesler, www.IsraelNationalNews.com

I did not think that the pro-Muslim/pro-Islam and anti-Western propaganda could get any worse—and yet it just has.

TIME magazine has an August 30 cover story titled “Is America Islamophobic?” Within, the article is titled: “Islam in America: It’s part of the fabric of life, but protests reveal a growing hostility to the religion of Muslims.”

President Obama’s rather strange assertions that “seven million” Muslims live in America (only 2.5-3 million actually do), and that “Islam has always played a role in America,” actually contradict the point of this piece, but no matter.

One might wonder why any hostility to a productive, historically significant Muslim presence in America exists. TIME magazine does not tell us.

The article portrays Muslims as innocent victims and American non-Muslims as prejudiced racists who, historically, once banned Catholicism, tried to limit immigration, burned African-American churches, passed anti-Chinese legislation, criminalized certain Native-American rituals (polygamy, rejection of modern medicine), spawned the Ku Klux Klan, failed to elect a Catholic President until 1960, allowed Father Coughlin’s anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rants to appear over the airwaves, and interned 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War Two. This is all contained in TIME’s “Brief History of Intolerance in America.”

This article could easily appear in an Egyptian or Syrian magazine; however it would be Israel that would be blamed for various alleged atrocities, and Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, even al-Qaeda, who would be seen as the innocent victims.

TIME magazine does not balance out their history of American intolerance with a history of American tolerance, which included separating the state from religion, reforming religions, instituting a tradition of free speech, fighting a bloody Civil War in order to free the slaves, giving women the vote and educational opportunities, freeing Europe from Nazi fascist rule and waging a Cold war against Soviet totalitarianism.

Also missing in the TIME magazine article is the fact that Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, have behaved very badly and for a very long time. Missing is an equal history of Muslim countries which have practiced colonialism, imperialism, forced conversions, slavery (which is still practiced), and a far more barbaric mistreatment of non-Muslims infidels.

Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, killed and forcibly converted Hindus in India for 800 years—and are still persecuting them; they have also destroyed the Christian Church in the Middle East and Central Asia—it is no more; in its place are only mosques and minarets where once only churches stood. Muslims vanquished Zorastrianism and Buddhism, and both exiled and genocidally exterminated Jews, Armenians, and Greeks. According to Israeli historian, Benny Morris, the Arab 1948 war against Israel must now also be understood as a religious holy war, a jihad, one that is still ongoing (“The 1948 War Was an Islamic Holy War,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2010).

TIME magazine fails to note all this—and gives little credence to more recent historical events.

Recently, Muslims, in the name of Islam, have hijacked planes, blown themselves and other people up, flown planes into tall buildings, plotted bomb attacks in New York City’s Times Square and over Detroit, shot American soldiers down on a military base in Texas, plotted to do so on military bases in New York and New Jersey. In addition, mosques everywhere, even in the West, have been preaching death to the Jews, death to Zionists, infidels, and Jihad Now! These mosques and their imams or mullahs have been funded by Arab and Muslim pro-jihad financiers.

After years of denial, indifference, and anti-racist, multi-culturally relativist political correctness, Europeans and Americans are only now just waking up to what Israel has been living with for 63 years. Too little, too late, they are now trying to halt some of the Muslim practices which are crimes and are best described as Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

When westerners protest Islamic Apartheid, they are demonized as “Islamophobes” and “racists.” This means that any resistance to aggressive Islamification is shamed and slandered. If that doesn’t work, physical intimidation and lawsuits (“lawfare”) follow.

Incredibly, the Western media and political establishment has taken the Muslim side. They confuse “Islam” or “radical Islam” with the majority of silent Muslims who are too afraid to take on the radicals, (or who agree with them), and with the small but precious number of Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents, feminists, secularists, and moderates who do stand up to the radical Muslims but who are not consulted by Western leaders or quoted in the Western media.

TIME magazine does not quote Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Seyran Ates, Zeyno Baran, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Magdi Allam, Bassam Tibi, Khaled Abu Toameh, who are Muslims and ex-Muslims who have written major works against Islam, and who have argued for human rights within Islam, including the right to leave Islam without risking death.

TIME magazine’s approach has also been adopted by the mainstream media in how they cover the controversy over the controversial mosque near Ground Zero. Those who oppose it are being called bigots, racists, and madmen, at least in the mainstream media. Those who defend it are seen as enlightened, tolerant “victims” whose religious freedom has been impinged. Just recently, Daisy Khan, Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf’s wife, claimed that the attacks have gone far beyond “Islamophobia” and are now in the realm of “discrimination against Jews.” [See 8-27-10 post]

Next thing I expect to hear is that the “Zionists” are behind the discrimination against the “Jewish” Muslims.

Welcome to the Middle East in New York City. Now, we are really all Israelis.

By Jamie Glazov, www.FrontPageMag.com

Bill O’Reilly is clearly continuing his shameless and cowardly surrender to sharia [Islamic] law. Daily on his program, The O’Reilly Factor on FoxNews.com, he engages in the standard and phony obfuscations about the jihad threat the West faces, consistently refusing to honestly name and label the Islamic foundations of the terrorist enterprise. Back in April 2010, he blatantly sided with our society’s dhimmis [non-Muslim in a Muslim society], blaming South Park for doing the Mohammed shows. Rather than praising the courage of South Park creators Parker and Stone, standing up for their right to make any script they wished, and denouncing the despots who threatened their lives (and the tenets of the Islamic religion that sanction such threats), O’Reilly publicly promoted submitting to sharia law, thereby surrendering to the forces who killed [Dutch] filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

Now, this past Tuesday, on his July 13 program, O’Reilly hits a new low, making a grotesque statement about the millions of suffering persecuted Muslim women around the world. In a bizarre debate with Laura Ingraham about France’s move to ban the burka [full body covering, with mesh over eyes], O’Reilly flippantly jokes about a tragic and deadly reality in which any serious, sensitive person would find nothing laughable. With great self-satisfaction, O’Reilly teases Ingraham about “rooting for the French” while mind-bogglingly siding against the French ban. He makes a disparaging reference to “the Western eye” to imply that forced veiling is only oppressive through our Western lens — as though there is no universal standard of human rights. Priding himself on being for “tolerance” and, therefore, for being in favor of “allowing” Muslim women to veil, he affirms that “most” Muslim women want to veil themselves.

A vile statement like this reveals such ignorance and heartlessness in the face of mass human suffering that one does not even know where to begin in response. But here, nevertheless, the attempt shall be made:

First and foremost, stating that “most” people favor something in an environment where verbalized dissent or oppositional action is viciously punished is meaningless. In other words, to say that “most” Cubans support Castro or that “most” North Koreans support Kim Jong Il, when anti-regime thoughts and acts will, in these circumstances, get a Cuban or North Korean imprisoned, tortured or killed, is disingenuous and erroneous to the extreme.

Thus, the slightest suggestion that Muslim women “want” to veil themselves pushes millions of suffering victims into invisibility. Under Islamic gender apartheid, expressions and actions by women in support of the ingredients of the tyranny that enslave them are utterly hollow if, within the societal structure, any contrary expression or behavior will be punished by social stigma, imprisonment, maiming, mutilation, torture, gang rape and execution. So, in Islamic cultures, women do not have a choice concerning whether they can veil or not veil. If they decide to throw their covering off, they will face horrendous punishment, which includes, like in the case of 20-year-old Fatima Bibi, acid being thrown in the face and, as in the case of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, murder.

This tragic suffering of Muslim women under these barbaric and sadistic circumstances of Islamic misogyny is tragically manifested in these heart-breaking photos of Muslim women, collected by feminist hero Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who have been disfigured by acid attacks for having trespassed the vicious codes of Islamic Law. [See photos below or at http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/11/23/under-the-islamic-veil-faces-disfigured-by-acid/]. I encourage Bill O’Reilly to take the time out to look at these pictures of real women whose faces have been disfigured by Muslim men. I encourage him to ask himself: Why did these women suffer these savage attacks? What theology inspires this murderous rage? Most importantly: Does it make sense, and can one possess even a shred of a real human heart, to make joking statements in support of Muslim women veiling when one knows that not veiling presents terrifying consequences to the women?

If a person truly cares for human justice, doesn’t it make more sense to stand up for Muslim women’s right not to veil and not to face ferocious violence and mutilation if they choose not veil? If a person has true integrity, wouldn’t they be interested in the Islamic teachings, rooted in the Koran (i.e. Sura 24:31) and in the hadiths [sayings of Mohammed], that mandate veiling and sanction this kind of fascism against women? Wouldn’t a person who is truly devoted to human rights prioritize exposing these teachings and confront them in an effort to eradicate the fertile soil in which the oppression of Muslim women grows?

The key issue, therefore, is that Muslim women are not free to make their own choices and making the wrong choices will culminate in severe punishment. How does Bill O’Reilly not know this? And if he knows it, how can he so cavalierly and flippantly talk about how “most” Muslim women supposedly want to veil? What if Jews, for instance, were once again forced, in any given society, to suddenly start wearing mandatory articles of clothing to identify and distinguish themselves from other people? Would O’Reilly be nonchalantly setting up creepy debates with Laura Ingraham on this issue as well, taking the side of how “most” Jews in that particular situation somehow supposedly wanted to wear the articles of clothing? Does he really not recognize the complete accuracy of this analogy? And does he not gauge the wound he would be delivering to the Jewish people about whom he was speaking? Does he not recognize the same wound he is delivering, with his smug mercilessness, to the millions of Muslim women suffering behind the Islamic Iron Curtain?

One can’t help but ask: what is O’Reilly’s educational background? Has he really never read or heard anything about how despotisms and apartheid structures enforce dress codes for the purpose of totalitarian ends? In all of his years on this planet, has O’Reilly truly never become aware of how the enforcement of such codes plays a crucial role in keeping the structures of tyranny and the enslavement of a people in check? Maoist unisex clothing, for instance, had a ruthless and vicious purpose. Does O’Reilly really not grasp that dress codes in the Islamic world, such as the nikab [full body covering with slits for the eyes] and the burka, which Phyllis Chesler has accurately termed “isolation and sensory deprivation chambers,” play a fundamental role in keeping the chains of gender apartheid in place?

And so, one now wonders: what are Bill O’Reilly’s motives in all of this? When, for instance, will he invite guests like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, and Wafa Sultan? When will he invite Phyllis Chesler, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer? These guests will be able to tell him and his viewers a lot about the fate that Muslim women suffer for not wearing the veil — and the theological reasons for their suffering. They will be able to introduce him to both victims of attempted honor killings and family members of those who have been brutalized or murdered for not wearing the veil.

How much time has O’Reilly really devoted to trying to locate the families of victims of honor killings to invite them on his show? Is he interested? Does he care? How many of his shows have included these kinds of guests and discussions?

Proposition to Bill O’Reilly: Imagine a Muslim woman in a nikab or burka sitting with her husband and family in a house. All of a sudden, she begins to announce that she does not approve of wearing her covering, nor of the Islamic theology behind it. She suddenly throws off her covering and runs outside. And she does this because that is what she wants to do. Question to Bill O’Reilly: What do you think would happen to such an individual? Do you care? Do you support her for following her own conscience? Does her fate in any way make you rethink the wisdom of going on national television, in front of millions of people, and opposing veil bans in the name of “tolerance” and, off the top of your head, talking about how you think “most” Muslim women want to wear the veil?

Feminist hero and a survivor of Islamic oppression, Wafa Sultan, has crystallized this dark and tragic reality well. In talking about the veil and how it is not a choice even when someone would think it appears to be, she says:

In 2005, I traveled to Syria with my American friend. We visited a small Syrian island (Erwad). My friend noticed that the majority of women in that place were head covered. I asked our tour guide to explain the reasoning behind it. I asked: “Are ALL women on this island covered? Without any hesitation he responded: “Yes, they are ALL covered except for a few whores.”

So, yes, it might be their decision, but it’s not their choice. When you make a decision, your society does not necessarily allow you to freely choose. The decision in this case is made to avoid humiliation and reprisal by the Muslim community around these women.

So, to conclude: Bill O’Reilly, keep in mind, that when you justify Muslim veiling without stressing the consequences for Muslim women for not veiling, then you are in league with the oppressors of millions of women — and you are calling out for, and are complicit in, the institutionalization of the burka and nikab.

And so, is there really any other conclusion but that freedom fighters such as David Horowitz, Phyllis Chesler, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Christine Williams, all of whom are on the frontlines fighting for Muslim women, are our society’s real heroes? They are true patriots.

And, hence, for behaving like a dhimmi, and for sacrificing Muslim women on the altar of his own narcissistic yearnings to be popular, to get ratings and to appear as “balanced,” Bill O’Reilly continues to be the ultimate Pinhead. And that’s no joke.

################

These photos from Phyllis Chesler’s PajamasMedia site show what happens to real women who wear the Islamic Veil. The photos depict horrifying hate and the unbearable suffering it inflicts upon female innocents. The photos were taken by Emilio Morenatti of the Associated Press. The text is based on work done by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

Irum Saeed, 30, poses for a photograph at her office at the Urdu University of Islamabad, Pakistan, Thursday, July 24, 2008. Irum was burned on her face, back and shoulders twelve years ago when a boy whom she rejected for marriage threw acid on her in the middle of the street. She has undergone plastic surgery 25 times to try to recover from her scars.

Shameem Akhter, 18, poses for a photograph at her home in Jhang, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 10, 2008. Shameem was raped by three boys who then threw acid on her three years ago. Shameem has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars.

Najaf Sultana, 16, poses for a photograph at her home in Lahore, Pakistan on Wednesday, July 9, 2008. At the age of five Najaf was burned by her father while she was sleeping, apparently because he didn’t want to have another girl in the family. As a result of the burning Najaf became blind and after being abandoned by both her parents she now lives with relatives. She has undergone plastic surgery around 15 times to try to recover from her scars.

Shehnaz Usman, 36, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008ct. 26, 2008
English: World English Bible - WEB
Izbrano poglavje ne obstaja!

WP-Bible plugin. Shehnaz was burned with acid by a relative due to a familial dispute five years ago. Shehnaz has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars.

By Ron Ross, www.Spectator.org

Our nation is celebrating its 234th birthday. Another event of profound and enduring significance also occurred in 1776. It was the publication of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.

Our Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution turned out to be enormously important for the cause of freedom not only in this country but what they inspired in other countries around the world. The Wealth of Nations and the lessons it taught have also reverberated far and wide since its publication. Smith’s insight and genius are reflected in the book’s full title — An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In a systemic way Smith set out to understand and explain the sources of a country’s economic health and growth.

The average life expectancy in England at the beginning of the 19th century was 41 years. At the beginning of the 21st century in the U.S. the life expectancy was 78 years. What accounts for that unprecedented improvement in human welfare? There are numerous factors — better nutrition, sanitation, refrigeration, advances in medical knowledge, for example — but most of them would not be possible without dramatic improvements in productivity and material wealth.

Recent history has reminded us of the widespread hardship resulting from economic stagnation. The worldwide recession has made virtually all our societal problems worse. More than two and a quarter centuries ago Adam Smith recognized the critical importance of economic growth and vitality.

Smith took issue with the prevailing political-economic philosophy of the time, something called “mercantilism.” The mercantilists believed that a nation’s power and strength depended on accumulations of gold. The mercantilists advocated government policies encouraging exports and discouraging imports, something we now refer to as “protectionism.” It is a policy that some still advocate.

Smith built a devastating case against mercantilist logic. He showed that a nation’s strength stemmed from its productivity and the efficiency of workers and businesses. He explained how a free market economy generates incentives and signals that push the economy in the direction of productivity and growth.

The first sentence in The Wealth of Nations makes the following observation: “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.” Smith was referring to what we now call specialization, and it continues to be one of the most important sources of economic progress. If not for the market and voluntary exchange we would all need to self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency makes specialization impossible.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for political freedom, The Wealth of Nations established the intellectual foundation and rationale for economic freedom. He showed that government interference with the free market almost always does far more harm than good. He showed that unfettered voluntary exchange is the best path to economic progress.

Smith explained that in a market economy, “Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how he is promoting it. He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as to produce the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

Smith was a persuasive and masterful writer. For example, “Taxes on the necessaries of life have nearly the same effect upon the circumstances of the people as a poor soil and a bad climate.”

Smith did not invent the free market. No single person did. He was the first, however, to grasp and understand how a market system functions. He therefore made it possible for others to understand and see the benefits of the market.

The primary value of having a theory of the free market is to provide a defense against those who want to interfere with it. Since well before Smith’s time there has been no shortage of those who want to substitute their judgment for that of the market.

A market economy can function whether or not anyone understands how it functions. A free market system is one of “spontaneous order.” The auto-pilot nature of the market is one of its greatest strengths, but it is also its greatest vulnerability. The market’s immense benefits get taken for granted. Since being aware of how the market functions is not a necessity, most people don’t bother learning about it.

The central theme of Milton Friedman’s classic Capitalism and Freedom is that a free market is a necessary condition for achieving political freedom. You can’t have one without the other. As we celebrate the birth of our political freedom we should also give thanks for another event that year that helped make our freedom meaningful and enduring. We can give thanks for those freedom-loving geniuses who lived on both sides of the ocean.

By Roee Nahmias, www.YNetNews.com

Geert Wilders (Reuters)

Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, said last week he believes Jordan should be renamed Palestine. The Jordanian government responded by saying Wilders’ speech was reminiscent of the Israeli right wing.

“Jordan is Palestine,” said Wilders, who heads the third-largest party in Holland. “Changing its name [back] to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland.”

Wilders added that Israel deserved a special status in the Dutch government because it was fighting for Jerusalem in its name.

“If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism,” he said.

“There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” Wilders also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

The Saudi Al-Watan carried Jordan’s response to Wilders’ speech. The kingdom’s embassy in Hague was outraged, and said the Dutch ambassador would soon be summoned to explain.

Jordan’s minister for media affairs and communications, Nabil Al Sharif, asked for clarifications. He described Wilders’ declaration as “an echo of the voice of the Israeli Right” and “crows’ screams”.

“Jordan is an independent and secure country which supports the Palestinian issue, and these imaginings of finding them an alternate homeland are nothing but the delusions of a few people,” he said.

By Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, www.PalWatch.org

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was not being honest when he said to President Obama earlier this month that the PA was not continuing its incitement against Israel.

Responding to President Obama’s demand that the PA make more progress “on incitement issues,” Abbas said:

“I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we’re not doing that. What we care about is to live in coexistence with Israel in order to bring about the independent Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel…” [AP, June 9, 2010ne 9, 2010
English: World English Bible - WEB


WP-Bible plugin]

In direct contradiction to Abbas’s claim, Palestinian Media Watch documented in a report released the same week that PA incitement to hatred and violence and non-recognition of Israel has continued unabated in the month since the start of the proximity talks.

For example, whereas Abbas said to President Obama that he supports “living side by side with Israel,” just a few weeks previous official PA TV called for Israelis to leave Israel and “return” to Germany and Poland:

“Where are you [Israelis] from? Of course, you’re from Ukraine; of course, you’re from Germany, from Poland, from Russia, from Ethiopia… I ask of you, return to your original homeland!” [PA TV (Fatah), May 4 and 7, 2010]

PA TV is owned by the Palestinian Authority and under direct control of the office of Abbas.

In addition, the PA this past month has continued to honor terrorists who have killed Israeli civilians by naming sporting events after them, a practice repeatedly condemned by the Obama administration.

These are just two examples among many in the new PMW report documenting that every condition, principle, and expectation set by the US for accepting the Palestinian Authority as a partner in the peace process continues to be violated by the PA.

The following is the new report in its entirety:
(Click to view full report in PDF)

Introduction
The start of the proximity talks in May 2010 created hope for the renewal of the Israeli – Palestinian peace process. Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas declared that the PA would fulfill its commitments, with special focus on their stopping incitement.

Findings
However, an examination of the Palestinian Authority leaders’ statements, official media, children’s programs and PA-controlled events creates a pessimistic picture: Every condition, principle and expectation set by the US and the Quartet for accepting the Palestinian Authority as a partner in the peace process continues to be violated by the Palestinian Authority in the first month of talks.

Contrasting its moderate statements to Western powers in English, with those to its own people in Arabic the Palestinian Authority, the Fatah leaders and the Abbas-controlled official PA media continue to deny Israel’s existence, deny Israel’s right to exist, define the conflict with Israel as an uncompromising religious war for Allah, promote hatred through demonization slander and libel, and glorify terror and violence.

The Report:
Education to deny Israel’s existence:
Official PA TV continues to teach children to envision a world in which Israel does not exist and all of Israel is instead part of the “State of Palestine.” The following lesson was on a new educational PA TV children’s program. The map used in the studio is named “Palestine” and includes all of Israel.

News reporting defining Israel as “Palestine” -1:
Even in sports news the Palestinian Authority official media looks for opportunities to deny Israel’s existence. PA-owned Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reported on the coach of an Israeli Arab football team from a city in northern Israel as follows:

News reporting defining Israel as “Palestine” -2:
Israeli Arab Journalist Sa’id Hasanein:

Redwan Sidr, secretary of the Al-Khalil Youth Foundation:

Maps denying Israel’s existence:
President Obama has called the use of maps as in the above children’s program a security threat to Israel:

Yet all the maps on official PA TV since the start of the proximity talks continue the longstanding PA policy of defining all of Israel as “Palestine,” or in the words of President Obama, “don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence.”

This map is one example among many that appeared this month.
It was broadcast numerous times on PA TV between May 4 – 17.

In the PA TV children’s program, “The Best House”, a music video called “We are Palestine’s children” featured pictures of map of “Palestine” including all of Israel. [PA TV (Fatah), May 14, 2010]

Denying Israel’s right to exist and calling for end of Israel:
An official PA TV statement lamenting the creation of the State of Israel included the following call for the dismantling of Israel because its land is “stolen” land:

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=381&fld_id=381&doc_id=2230

PA TV Quiz offers $500 for answering that Israeli city Haifa is a “Palestinian coastal city.”
This PA TV quiz envisioning a world without Israel was broadcast numerous times in May 2010.

PA TV quiz program. Question posed to viewers at home:

Religious war –“Ribat” – against Israel’s creation and existence since 1917

The PA Minister of Religious Affairs, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, continues to define the conflict with Israel as an uncompromising religious war – a “Ribat” – war for Islam. “Peace” as a Palestinian goal is said to take 4th place after the Palestinian “rights”, “cause” and “religion,” none of which will be compromised for peace. Moreover, he elevates the conflict with Israel in religious significance, saying the war was predetermined, being anticipated even in the Quran.

The Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, appointed by the PA, likewise defines the conflict with Israel as an uncompromising religious war – a “Ribat” – that began with the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation.

The PA official daily crossword puzzle presents a world without Israel.

Clue: “Palestinian city”
Solution: “Jaffa” [part of Tel Aviv]
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), May 20, 2010]

Hate promotion, slander, libel and demonization

PA continues to slander Israel, demonize and deny Israel’s history in the land:

PATV News reporter demonizes Israel and its creation:

Animalization of Israel and Jews continues in PA cartoons.

A shark in shape of the Star of David representing Israel is eating a map that includes all of Israel yet is marked as “Palestine.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), May 23, 2010]

Gaza flotilla
The PA at all levels exaggerated the Gaza flotilla confrontation and used it as an excuse to demonize and promote hatred of Israel. Whereas criticism of Israeli policies is acceptable, the Palestinian Authority used this incident as a launching point for far greater and more intense hate promotion both by slandering and libeling Israel about the incident itself, and by compounding the defamation, saying that this murderous behavior was part of the Israeli behavior and personality. This will be reported on in greater detail in the June PMW Incitement Watch report.

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas himself accused Israel of premeditated and determined killing:

Promoting and glorifying terror and violence

Honoring terrorists as children sing to future war against Israel
PA TV program “Good Morning Jerusalem” dedicated a program to honoring female terrorist prisoner Sanaa Shehadeh, who is serving 3 life sentences for transporting a suicide terrorist to Jerusalem in 2002. Her two nieces dedicated a song of war to her:

Girl 1:

“I want to recite a song for you [female prisoner Sanaa Shehadeh]:
‘What am I doing here while my enemy is on my ancestors’ land?
I want to defend, I want to fight,
I want to carry a machine gun and a rifle.’”
Girls 1 and 2:
“’And tomorrow, when the war starts,
I won’t care about you [my enemy], or about the West.
And tomorrow when the war starts,
I won’t care about you [my enemy], or about the West.
And we shall strike Israel, we shall strike Israel,
And return you [to us], land of my ancestors;
And return you [to us], land of my ancestors.’”

Glorification of terror
Ignoring the American leadership statements condemning the PA glorification of terror, the PA continues to honor terrorists by naming events after them. Worse still, Palestinian children were explicitly told that the naming of an event after the terrorist Abu Jihad is meant to make them see him as a role model:

Abu Jihad (Khalil Al-Wazir) – A founder of Fatah and deputy to Yasser Arafat. Headed the PLO terror organization’s military wing. Planned many deadly Fatah terror attacks, including the worst in Israeli history, the hijacking of a bus and killing of 37 civilians, 12 of them children.

Football tournament named after terrorist Abdallah Daoud:

Abdallah Daoud – Responsible for many terror attacks. Was one of the terrorists who stormed the Church of the Nativity in 2002, continuing to fight against Israel for several weeks while using the monks and the religious site as shields.

Football team named after terrorist Majed Abu Sharar:
A report on the Shahid Faisal Al-Husseini football festival, held in Rafiah, mentions the “Martyr Majed Abu Sharar” team:

Majed Abu Sharar – A senior Fatah and PLO terror leader in 1970s.

Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and former PA senior official, Jibril Rajoub, likewise glorified terror, comparing the value of “throwing a hand grenade” to “building a school.”
Rajoub:

Honoring terrorist Dalal Mughrabi’s bus hijacking in which 37 were killed:
Jamil Dweik, Chairman of the Al-Razi Institute for Culture and Society:

Dalal Mughrabi - Led the worst terror attack in Israel’s history in 1978, when she and other terrorists hijacked a bus and killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children.

Cessation of terror is temporary
In addition to this ongoing terror glorification the PA has repeatedly engaged in apologetics to its population for having acquiesced to the US demand to cease terror at this time during the talks. Twice in two days, senior PA and Fatah leader, Nabil Shaath, made speeches using apologetic language to justify the cessation of violence, which he stressed was because of current conditions. Excuses for cessation of the “armed struggle” that Shaath mentioned included: “At the present time is not possible, or is not effective,” “has become undesirable now,” “international conditions do not permit us,” “the inability to engage in the armed struggle.”

Dr. Nabil Shaath, Fatah Commissioner of Foreign Relations:

Editorials in the PA official daily repeat this excuse for cessation of terror

Fatah leader Abbas Zaki, member Fatah Central Committee, justifies violence:

Conclusion
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Ops, on April 23, 2009l 23, 2009
English: World English Bible - WEB


WP-Bible plugin:

Examining the Palestinian Authority leaders’ statements, its education of youth, and its controlled media, it is clear that the Palestinian Authority has not complied with the conditions indicated by the Secretary of State nor has it fulfilled its commitment to “work against incitement of any sort.”

In the first month since the start of the proximity talks, not only hasn’t the PA “unambiguously and explicitly” accepted these conditions, but they have done the opposite; the Palestinian Authority has “unambiguously and explicitly” denied Israel’s existence, incited to hatred, and glorified terror and violence.

By Juda S. Engelmayer, www.OpEdNews.com

Listening to the now infamous Helen Thomas interview, I either can be disgusted with her, or I can focus on and be revolted by the real issue here: the state of education, knowledge and bias in the world. Sad as it is, Ms. Thomas–a bright, worldly and cultured member of our elite press corps for over a half-century either does not know or does not care about what the truth really is. Sadder still is the fact that there are millions of people out there who agree with Thomas. In most cases, however, it is not because they ignore the truth but because they do not know it. Instead, they repeat the lies that are consistently told by the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel racists who have made it their mission to delegitimize Israel and degrade the Jewish people.

Thomas’ sentiments that Jews should go back home to Poland and to Germany reveal a deep-rooted animosity. That Jews should go back to the places where they were slaughtered en masse is a sure sign of extreme hatred. Yet, that is not the most troublesome part for me. Thomas, exposed as an intolerant bigot, advises Jews to go home–but the same opinion is rooted even among the people who openly support Israel. The Thomas affair brings to light just how well the anti-Israel lobby has succeeded in distorting the truth that even Israel’s friends repeat the propaganda that the Jews have no legitimate claims to a place in the Holy Land.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said as much when he criticized Thomas–and he is a strong supporter of Israel, her existence and right to defend herself. He recalled the Holocaust in his rebuke of the 90 year old columnist, speaking of how inappropriate it is to tell Jews to go back home. Appreciative as I am to hear him do that, he fails the Jewish history test too.

Then Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar chided Thomas on The View, and once again, reminded the viewers of the horrors that occurred at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Goldberg, in imploring for a peaceful solution to the Middle East, alluded to a time when Jews did not live there, but came to the region. She too failed the Jewish history test.

Here is the bottom line. It truly is set in stone: Jews never left what they and the Bible call the Land of Israel. From the day the Israelites under Joshua crossed over to the west bank of the Jordan River 3,200r 3,200
English: World English Bible - WEB


WP-Bible plugin years ago until today, Jews have lived in the Land of Israel. They lived there during the Babylonian exile; they lived there during Persian rule; they lived there under the Roman thumb; they lived there throughout the Byzantine and Ottoman empires; they lived there during the days of Mandatory Palestine.

In 1929, for example, 67 Jews were killed in Hebron and the rest of the Jewish population was forced to leave. These were not immigrants from Europe; they and their families had lived in Hebron for at least 800 years. That same year, 20 Jews were massacred in Safed–again a community in which there had been a continuous Jewish settlement for at least 800 years. (Earlier Jewish communities in both places were eradicated by Christian crusaders in the 12th century.)

Jews lived in Jerusalem and Jericho, Nablus and Nazareth, Beersheba, and Beit Shean–and these are provable facts, not Zionist fairy tales.

Towards the end of the 19th Century and through the first half of the 20th, Jews indeed came to Israel from other areas of the Near East, Africa and Europe. Most either were expelled from their homes or were fleeing persecution. Persian Jews were expelled from Iran. Jews from Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Yemen, Libya, and so many more, all fled to the one place they knew they were permitted to live freely. Jews from Russia and Germany fled pogroms, anti-Jewish riots and bloodshed. They left their material homes for their ancestral one because they were no longer allowed to live in the place they themselves were born and raised. So they joined up with the Jews who had always lived in “Palestine” to create a home for the Jews that truly was their home.

As an aside, we never see international calls for Jewish justice; no calls for return to or compensation from the lands they fled. It is always a one way street when it comes to Jews and Israel

Even Israel’s supporters forget the demographics of the Middle East, or they ignore it. They forget–or ignore–other truths, as well, such as that the Jewish Settlement in Palestine on Nov. 29, 1947, announced its acceptance of a United Nations resolution that called for the creation of two separate Palestinian states, one Jewish and one Arab; that the Jews were the only ones in the region to accept this; that seven Arab states immediately invaded the lands set aside for the Palestinian Arab state and occupied those lands for the next 19 years; that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964, three years before the first Israelis in a generation set foot in the West Bank and Gaza, before any settlement was ever an issue; that Jordan, which illegally occupied the West Bank, denied the Jews access to their holy places from 1949 through 1967; that in the wake of the Six-Day War in June 1967, the Arab states and the PLO meeting in Khartoum adopted the infamous “three no’s”–no peace with Israel; no negotiations with Israel; no recognition of Israel; and so many other truths.

Israel and the Jewish establishment must bear most of the blame for these misperceptions. They have failed to do their jobs effectively. They have allowed anti-Semites old and new to kidnap the truth and subvert the dialogue. They have allowed the message to be obscured by false rhetoric. Helen Thomas is not the real problem, as someone with her views would not be inclined to report the truth anyway. The outwardly pro-Israel contingents of public figures, newsmakers, celebrities, advocates, and such who defend Israel to the world every day are more worrisome. If even Israel’s friends do not know the truth, how can anyone expect a world, inclined to vilify Israel, to treat her justly?

The Mavi Marmara incident has marred Israel and given the anti-Semites new ammunition to fire, but it triggers an even bigger calling for Jews and for Israel right now to find a way to change the dialogue about Israel and Jewish people as it comes to the Middle East. Israel’s supporters and historians need to do much better to present the truth and purge the spin meant to delegitimize her:

Jews have always been in Israel, and in many ways, 1948 just opened the gates for Jews to return.

By Robert Spencer, www.HumanEvents.com

Now that it has been revealed that not one, but two mosques are planned for the area around Ground Zero, the supremacist and triumphalist character of this effort is clearer than ever. Is the Muslim population of lower Manhattan so huge that one projected mosque—even one so large as to be housed within a 15 story Islamic Center—would immediately be bursting at the seams, and thus yet another is required even before the first is built?

Of course not. Muslims are already praying at the projected site of the massive Islamic Center, an old Burlington Coat Factory outlet that was damaged by a piece of one of the hijacked airplanes fell through the roof on 9/11. (A Muslim real estate company paid $4.85 million in cash for the building. Where that cash came from has not been explained).

That building doesn’t appear to be overflowing, although Muslims are reportedly holding prayers on the sidewalk outside another lower Manhattan mosque, apparently in order to give the impression that they’re in dire need of more space. This is, however, more for show than for necessity.

The placement of mosques throughout Islamic history has been an expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims. Muslims built the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in order to proclaim Islam’s superiority to Judaism. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was built over the Church of St. John the Baptist, and the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople was converted into a mosque, to express the superiority of Islam over Christianity. Historian Sita Ram Goel has estimated that over 2,000r 2,000
English: World English Bible - WEB
Štetje svetopisemskih vrstic se začne z ¹! Vrstica ⁰ ne obstaja!

WP-Bible plugin mosques in India were built on the sites of Hindu temples for the same reason.

But the Ground Zero mosque, or mosques, won’t be another example of that Islamic supremacism, will they? After all, the mosque initiative’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has said that the building of the mosque by the World Trade Center site was intended to make “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

The group behind the 15 story Islamic Center sent a statement claiming that the planned mosque was “a project to honor those who were harmed on September 11. It is a project to proclaim our patriotism to this country and to stand side-by-side all men and women of peace.”

And Ground Zero is not a holy site, so the symbolism of Islam conquering and replacing other religions isn’t there—or is it?

The Twin Towers, after all, were the symbol of America’s economic power. Placing a mosque by the site of their destruction (at the hands of Islamic jihadists) symbolizes the taming of that power. Abdul Rauf has placed the blame for 9/11 not on jihadists at all, but on the U.S. and the West, saying that they “must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” Statements like that call into question just who the mosque organizers have in mind when they say the mosque is intended to honor “those who were harmed on September 11.”

The possibility of deception cannot here be ruled out, given that Abdul Rauf has a history of making smooth statements that appear to endorse American principles and values, when on closer examination he is upholding sharia (Islamic) law, denigrating freedom of speech, and advocating against anti-terror measures.

by Jacob Shrybman, www.FrontPageMag.com

When developing this article I really couldn’t decide if I was going to write it in a satirical manner or in a concerned manner. The concept was just so ridiculous to me, I wasn’t sure how to convey it to the world.

The military wing of the terrorist organization Hamas, the Al Qassam Brigades –which murders, pillages, persecutes, fires rockets, stones, lynches, blows themselves up, etc. — has a Twitter account. No folks, I am not joking. The days when the world is spooked by an unmarked video or cassette tape which arrives at the Al Jazeera offices are over. You can simply “Follow” them with your personal Twitter account.

I was stunned to see the user name @AlqassamBrigade pop up amongst the average 100 tweets an hour mentioning Gaza. I had been to the terrorists’ website (which has the fun option to choose your favorite color scheme for the menus) to see their propagandized use of images from Operation Cast Lead, and this was their matching Twitter account.

Sitting at my laptop using our Sderot Media Center Twitter account, @SderotMedia, most likely only a couple of miles away from the terrorists managing the Hamas Twitter account, I thought to engage them in dialogue on one of the base debates in this conflict:

@AlqassamBrigade As you know, you terrorize thousands just over the border from Gaza here in Sderot. Or do you call it Najd?

Never receiving an answer and following protocol, I filed a complaint with Twitter and this is the automated response I received: Twitter provides a communication service. As a policy, we do not mediate content or intervene in disputes between users. Users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided that they do not violate the Twitter Terms of Service and Rules (name calling is not a violation.)

Essentially, this gives the terrorist organization the most popular worldwide platform to preach whatever propaganda or hate speech they like because, as you see above, “name calling is not a violation.”

The automated Twitter response continues, “If a violent threat is posted in the future, please let us know, and send the status link.” So, only if Hamas tweets about the imminent launch of a missile attack will Twitter take action?

In the worldwide blockbuster jaw-dropping movie Bruno, created by comic mastermind Sasha Baron Cohen, the main character Bruno is attempting to make peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict and while hosting a dialogue session he continually misuses the word “Hamas” for “Hummus;” it exemplifies the great light humor for which Baron Cohen is famous. The mainstream legitimization of the terrorist organization Hamas is so widespread that, these days, it is almost a household term and this is how the caricaturist can comically draw that connection on screen.

However, it is more than a joke when the entire world has turned its back on Hamas’ actions for nearly a decade thereby accepting it into the public domain. Rocket and suicide attacks on Jewish civilians are clearly not enough, but why won’t the world delegitimize Hamas for human rights abuses such as “honor killings?” Instead, the United Nations and Judge Goldstone chose to give Hamas and radical Islam around the world an over 500 page report to continue their terrorism.

Let’s be clear: This is not an issue of freedom of speech as Hamas is a terrorist organization even to the United Nations. I encourage everyone with a Twitter account to file a complaint against Hamas’ account @AlqassamBrigade to get Hamas out of our households and stop the tweeting of terror.