Everybody’s Asking ‘Is Obama Mentally Present?’

Everybody’s Asking ‘Is Obama Mentally Present?’

M Catharine Evans

 


Conservatives aren’t the only ones befuddled
by the President’s Gridiron dinner antics, March madness picks and his strange
Saturday radio address focusing on the Paycheck Fairness Act when a government
shutdown has been looming for weeks.

Daily
Mail’s Max Hastings
calls Barack Obama “cool, cold, cerebral, and arrogant”
in a March 14 lament.

Hastings, like millions of Europeans, fell in lust
with the U.S President back in 2008 and now that the bloom is off the stem, he
wants to break up. Like most of Obama’s star-struck groupies he’s racking his
brain trying to understand what happened to the knight “mantled in a glittering
white cloak…the great speechmaker.”

On the Mideast, Afghanistan, the
debt, unemployment, and myriad domestic and international crises the One appears
“remote” displaying “a curious lack of interest.” Curiously, Hastings cites
Obama’s post-massacre Arizona speech when he “rose to extraordinary heights of
rhetoric” as the single exception to the president’s otherwise glaring
indifference in the face of so much turmoil.

Hastings contention that
Obama is “missing in action” makes us wonder whether the President was ever ‘in
the action’ to begin with. By now, those paying attention know the Chicago
trained community organizer did not come to lead but to act as a mouthpiece for
those who desire to change the founding fathers’ vision of America. And he needs
four more years to finish the job. Hastings all but admits this may be the
case:

While the world welcomed Obama as a transformational figure, he
shows no sign of wishing to fulfil any such grand role.

Indeed, the White
House is obsessed with a single issue: how to get its man re-elected in November
2012.

A Washingtonian who has studied the President at close quarters
said to me: ‘I think I understand him now. He’s a “pol” – a politico – who
learned his business in the Chicago machine.

In trying to
make sense of it all Hastings, being a good liberal Brit, scapegoats the
American people as “nutters” and dutifully bashes Sarah Palin as that “moose
hunting air-headed vice presidential candidate” whose “hick followers still
love” her, but “Lord, be thanked, the White House now seems safe from her.”

The reporter insists that the majority of Americans who live in the real
world reject the “Republican excesses,” and appreciate a “brilliant man” who
never says or acts “irrationally.”

Hastings refuses to speak ill of his
former idol, but by the end of the piece he expresses frustration at the
President’s refusal to man up and “fight tough fights.” But it can’t be the
President’s fault; he “was bound to succumb to the sordid demands of machine
politics.” Was that before 2008 or after?

The reporter can’t seem to
bring himself to admit he was powerless over the Obama machine, taken in by the
phony Axelrodian reality. Instead Hastings blames the “hicks” that did their
homework. Weren’t they the ones who  googled ‘Alinsky;’ were aghast when they
listened to Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-white speeches;
and who discovered the “brilliant man” voted ‘present’ 129 times in the Illinois
State Senate?

A “Washington admirer” urges Hastings to “not lose faith”
in Barack Obama, that he “may still lay claim to greatness.” What a twisted and
doomed love story this presidency is turning out to be.

Read
more M.Catharine Evans at www.potterwilliamsreport.com

Stealth Jihad Alert

Stealth Jihad Alert

A custom designed T-Shirt to support the organizing campaign.  The T-Shirt says:There is nothing “other” about us.  Assert your identity by writing in ARAB” 

My neighbors:

“SAN FRANCISCO — A coalition of Arab-American cultural organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area have launched a grassroots organizing campaign designed to send a clear message to Washington: that they, along with every other Arab in America, are in fact Arab, and not white.

She argued that the time is now for Arabs to mobilize as a community, and hopes that these efforts will lead to establishing an “Arab” box to check-off for the 2020 Census.

Also, in certain parts of San Francisco and the greater Bay Area, where new immigrant Arab communities have settled, having such Census data will help ensure that those areas have translators in vital settings like in hospitals to accommodate those in need.

“We don’t want to be subsumed under the category of white,” Qutami said. Arabs “don’t identify as white, and don’t identify as black either,” she added. “We’re still so misunderstood.”“There is this idea that Arabs are refugees or new immigrants because we’re invisible,” she added. “There’s a distortion in our identity, that we’re camel riders, nomads, when in fact Yemenis were part of the labor movement with Cesar Chavez.”“Kased also said the canvassers are reassuring everyone by pointing out that, “we’re doing this for our own community, to unify our community; we’re not doing this for the government.”  

They are doing it for Muslims, not for the government. Got that?

 

 Sunday, April 11, 2010

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/next-census-ripoff-arabs-muslims-organize-to-get-counted-in-census-arabs-dont-identify-as-white-and-.html

Next Census ripoff: Arabs [Muslims] Organize to Get Counted in Census — Arabs “don’t identify as white, and don’t identify as black either,” she added. “We’re still so misunderstood.”

More misunderstanders of Islam. “We are not white, we are not black” — we are a new victimized minority (of 1.5 billion worldwide), and we’ve come to fleece America. Booty call.

A custom designed T-Shirt to support the organizing campaign.

ARABS ORGANIZE TO GET COUNTED IN THE CENSUS American Media hat tip Patti

SAN FRANCISCO — A coalition of Arab-American cultural organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area have launched a grassroots organizing campaign designed to send a clear message to Washington: that they, along with every other Arab in America, are in fact Arab, and not white.

At issue is the format of the 2010 Census form, which has boxes for more than a dozen different racial categories but no racial or ethnic category for people of Arab descent.

In response, community activists have launched a grassroots canvassing campaign to encourage Arabs living throughout the San Francisco Bay Area to complete the 2010 Census by checking the “other” box in Section 9 and write in “Arab.”

The drive was launched at an organizing meeting last Sunday that brought together representatives and volunteers from local Arab social service and cultural organizations.

Loubna Qutami, a coordinator with the Arab Cultural and Community Center (ACCC), one of the organizations behind the campaign, said for far too long, Arabs have been classified as “other,” “Caucasian,” or “white.”

“We don’t want to be subsumed under the category of white,” Qutami said. Arabs “don’t identify as white, and don’t identify as black either,” she added. “We’re still so misunderstood.”

“There is this idea that Arabs are refugees or new immigrants because we’re invisible,” she added. “There’s a distortion in our identity, that we’re camel riders, nomads, when in fact Yemenis were part of the labor movement with Cesar Chavez.”

Invisible? When? On what day of the week are they invisible?

Qutami said that there is also a “hyper visibility – that we’re terrorists, and that’s when people want to know we’re Arab,” she said. “We need to have a voice.”

She argued that the time is now for Arabs to mobilize as a community, and hopes that these efforts will lead to establishing an “Arab” box to check-off for the 2020 Census.

Undercounting Arabs

According to the 2000 Census, the number of Arabs living in the United States was 1.25 million, a figure that many involved in this initiative believe is inaccurate, since Arabs traditionally have larger families than other ethnic groups in the United States. The Arab American Institute estimates the national population to be more than 3.5 million. Community activists say both numbers are too low.

One reason for the undercount, Qutami said, is that without a box to check Arabs write in a variety of terms – for example, Middle-Eastern, Arab-American or Palestinian — on the Census questionnaire, and the numbers get stratified.

Another organizer, Lily Haskell, who is of Moroccan descent and is with the Arab Resource and Organizing Committee (AROC), echoed Qutami’s views.

Ramsey El-Qare, campaign volunteer reaching  out to store owner Samaan Azar

and his wife, Ph: Suzanne Manneh She said only by identifying as Arab on the Census will legislators know how many Arabs are actually in their constituency. Also, in certain parts of San Francisco and the greater Bay Area, where new immigrant Arab communities have settled, having such Census data will help ensure that those areas have translators in vital settings like in hospitals to accommodate those in need.

Accommodations?

That is exactly why community organizers must canvass neighborhoods on foot to convey this to other Arabs, explained Rama Kased, a coordinator with the Arab Youth Organization (AYO).

Canvassing on Foot

“Canvassing is the oldest way of doing outreach— it was done before Facebook and texting,” Kased said, “this is how you can build off of what they are telling you, it’s really personal and the person feels like their voice counts.” That, she added, was how community organizers and volunteers can connect with and empower other Arabs.

Kased also said the canvassers are reassuring everyone by pointing out that, “we’re doing this for our own community, to unify our community; we’re not doing this for the government.”

They are doing it for Muslims, not for the government. Got that?

[…]

Similar efforts are also underway in Arab communities throughout the United States like Los Angeles, Detroit, and Chicago. Town hall meetings are being organized and Arab newspapers are writing short, “news you can use” articles that explain how to fill out the Census questionnaire.

Canvassers were wearing T-shirts depicting an Arab woman in a kuffiyeh and the U.S. Census form. They brought large posters that student artists designed, which outlined the need to complete the Census and write-in Arab. They hung them in business windows with each owner’s permission. They also supplied each business informational postcards in Arabic and English about how to fill out the Census, to leave on their counters, in addition to pamphlets outlining social and cultural services available to Arabs in the Bay Area.

Unfamiliar with the Census

Several business owners they encountered were unfamiliar with the Census or its importance, and said many Arabs have always felt left out of the process and kept uninformed.

Arabs, like Samaan Azar, a mini-market owner on 16th and Mission, was one of them. When Ramsey El-Qare and Homa Nader – campaign volunteers representing the ACCC – explained the Census to him, Azar was disappointed. Over the years, he said, he has always had to justify his racial and ethnic identity because there was never a place for him. Azar said he was eager to share the information with all of his other Arab friends and family in the United States.

“We need to be recognized for who we are,” he told the group of canvassers before him.

[…]

She said that one well-known restaurant owner who had been in the United States for nearly 30 years was not responsive at first. “But then I asked him if he would identify as ‘white,’ since we’re usually lumped in with ‘white,’ or ‘white-other,’” she said.

“‘No way, I am not white, we are not white, we are not anything except Arab, and if this is what we have to do, then I support it,'” she recounted.

 ————————————————————

Mark Hass

Director, EducateUSA

Chapter Leader, Silicon Valley ACT! for America

www.EducateUSA.org

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. Thomas Mann 

To be removed from or added to the EducateUSA – Silicon Valley ACT! for America email list, contact Director@EducateUSA

The Party of Death

The Party of Death

By David Forsmark
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/27/2008

Embryo: A Defense of Human Life
By Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen
Doubleday, $23.95, 224pp.
Someone watching the Democratic candidates debate could be forgiven for wondering if they’re viewing a year-old videotape.

But the reality is Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are so hidebound by ideology and beholden to left-wing interest groups that actual events are not allowed to intrude on their scripts.

There has been, for instance, no appreciable change in the position of the candidates — or Democrat Party leaders — on Iraq since the grimmest days of sectarian violence, even though the military surge has brought tremendous success. Former opponents have joined our side, and many signs of national unity are springing up at the micro — and, yes, the macro — level.

“Surrender! All is lost!” remains the battle cry of the Democrat Party. That might be “change,” but it hardly qualifies as “hope.”

Similarly, despite recent breakthroughs in adult and umbilical stem cell research that many scientists say make the ethically troubling notion of killing human embryos unnecessary for research, Democrats are still busy damning George W. Bush for the fact that Christopher Reeves didn’t rise up and walk.

Clinton and Obama almost daily repeat the canard that George W. Bush has halted stem cell research. In reality, Bush only denied federal funding for such research; then again, in their worldview, the denial of taxpayers’ money to pay for embryonic stem cell lab work is the same as banning it. But even more troublling is Clinton and Obama’s callousness in refusing to even consider any ethical quandary in taking one life for the benefit of another.

But what do you expect from people who are willing to lose a war in order to score political points and for whom even banning the grotesqueries of partial birth abortion is not worth offending the smallest part of their political base?

Pro-life conservatives generally have two straw men to battle when arguing their case, one from each end of the life cycle — the case for embryonic life and some variation on the Terry Schiavo case. In each instance, the charge of religious extremism is likely to be hurled.

Because the charge that the argument in favor of embryonic right to life is purely a religious one, prominent bioethicists Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen set out on what might seem a peculiar task. In Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, they decide to make the case for the rights of human embryos absent any religious argument whatsoever.

Whatever you think of this daunting — and occasionally rhetorically awkward — task, most readers will be persuaded by the authors’ main thesis by the book’s opening brilliant illustration. In fact, the first dozen pages or so, with minor editing, would make a superb pamphlet for pro-life groups to distribute.

The authors open Embryo with a subchapter called Noah and the Flood. No, this Noah’s not the 600 year-old patriarch pf Old Testament fame with his floating zoo; he’s the youngest person to be rescued from Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters.

Noah Benton Markham had been one of 1,400 frozen embryos rescued from a New Orleans hospital threatened by the rising waters. As the authors point out, had it not been for rescue workers:

Noah would have perished. For it was Noah who was frozen in one of those canisters, Noah who was brought from New Orleans by boat, Noah who was subsequently planted in his mother’s womb, and Noah who was born on January 16, 2007.

The frozen embryo brought out that day, the authors point out, could not have become anything other than Noah. His parents might have been able to have another baby, but it would not have been Noah. Noah could not have been recreated at another time. Noah was genetically complete when the police officers brought him to safety, it was his life that was saved.

Therefore, the authors conclude, and this is “confirmed by all the best science”:

(H)uman embryos are from the beginning, human beings sharing an indentity with, though younger than, the older human beings they will grow up to become.

To one extent or another, the rest of Embryo is a scientific defense of this proposition, and an answer to nearly every argument commonly made against it.

The authors are convinced that the argument can only be won by removing religion from the argument and focusing solely on “science” and “universally accepted philosophical methods of inquiry.”

Of course, arguing such matters in a non-religious vacuum creates its own problems — and begs its own questions.

George and Tollifsen argue persuasively that there is no time at which a human embryo is “not a person.” Thus, it has the rights all persons enjoy —  most basically, the “right not to be killed.”

While the right of a person not to be killed is universally accepted in the West, it is also the result of a particular religious ethos — one rejected by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and bin Laden to name a few.

It is the rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethos that leads scientists who would never dream of rejecting the right to life to a breathing human to deny it to embryonic humans. One can hardly argue that those scientists are ignorant of the genetic makeup or human completeness of the embryo.

However, since the same scientists — along with leftist politicians and hard-core feminists — confuse the issue by arguing that resistance to killing or experimenting on embryonic human life is made on purely mystical grounds and not scientific ones, George and Tollefsen have performed a vital service with this book.

Embryo is a brief but not an easy read. While the authors have a clear and concise writing style reminiscent of James Q. Wilson’s thoughtful books on ethics and the law, the issues here are of necessity sometimes discussed in highly technical terms.However, whether you read it straight through, digest it in chunks or keep it as a handy reference guide for sticky arguments —  such as why it is not hypocritical for a pro-lifer to say a fireman, if forced to choose, should rescue a 5-year-old girl rather than a tray of embryos — Embryo is a valuable addition to the library of anyone who engages in the war of ideas.

Islamic Hitlers

Arabs are to blame

Arabs are to blame

In A TASTE FOR TERROR Ralph Peters has some trenchant things to say about Arabs.

No Arab potentate wants the Palestinians to build a successful, rule-of-law state that co-exists with Israel. Nor does a single Arab ruler like democracy in Lebanon.

As for the mess in Lebanon, Syria’s inability to refrain from deadly mischief is a blessing in at least one respect: It makes it harder for the advocates of phony Realpolitik (such as former Secretary of State Jim “Have you hugged your dictator today?” Baker) to push us back into yesteryear’s cozy relationships with genocidal Arab despots.

[..] Of course, the Lebanese have been the long-standing victims of meddling Arab powers and the refusal of larger and far richer Arab states to give Palestinians hope for better lives.

[..] The truth is that other Arabs want the Palestinians to continue to suffer. It’s useful as an excuse for all their failings.

[..] After passing up so many chances for peace and statehood, they can no longer be classed as victims of Zionism. Yet the Palestinians are victims – of the other Arabs who exploit them and neglect them. And of the madmen spawned from their own kind.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 8:56 am |

Energy Squeeze

Energy Squeeze
By Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 8, 2007

The international energy market of the twenty-first century is witnessing an unprecedented period of turmoil and instability, an indication of an indisputable global power shift that holds serious, long-term implications for U.S. national security interests throughout the world. Acting in silent unison, energy-rich governments in the Middle East, Eurasia and South America, in particular, populist dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad; China’s stoic President Hu Jintao, and Russia’s enigmatic President Vladimir Putin, have demonstrated a growing penchant for energy-related controversy and confrontation. No longer satisfied with Western-defined progress, these countries have become emboldened players on the world stage, using commodities such as crude oil, natural gas and mineral deposits as weapons against perceived U.S. hegemony.   

The ultimate goal of this new energy alliance is to eventually humble the U.S. as the world’s undisputed political, economic and military power forcing it’s withdraw from the world stage by using energy as a sledgehammer for international change. Acting independently, these countries can attain, at best, only marginal influence and power. Acting together, however, they become formidable adversaries.  

The power of energy as a weapon for capitulation was demonstrated in late 2005 when Russian oil conglomerate Gazprom used the “energy weapon” against former Soviet republic Ukraine. By temporarily cutting off natural gas supplies to the western-leaning government of Viktor Yushchenko and ignoring standing contractual obligations, Moscow gave an early glimpse of how its new energy-based foreign policy could be used to persuade and punish. 

As a direct result of the Russia-Ukraine dispute, alleged energy distribution “difficulties” were reported by Moscow which resulted in natural gas supplies to Europe being substantially cut, raising the ire of European leaders such as Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. In hindsight, Chancellor Merkel’s reaction is understandable. Europe’s reliance on Russian crude exports has risen from 9 percent of total crude imports in 1995 to 29 percent in 2006. Energy industry experts predict the EU will import 90 percent of its oil and 80 percent of its natural gas within 20 years as onshore and offshore fields become mature. Although the Russia-EU crisis was eventually resolved, it provided a “dry run” exercise for Moscow and proved once again what most of Europe’s leaders knew all along – that energy is the EU’s “Achilles heel.”  

In the past several days, Moscow has threatened to cut off Estonia’s energy supplies in response to the small country’s decision to remove a Soviet-era memorial of a Red Army soldier, saying oil, diesel and natural gas deliveries “may be disrupted” starting May 1. Even long-time allies of Moscow such as Belarus’ Cold-War dictator Alexander Lukashenko have become casualties in the new energy game, seeing a nearly fourfold increase in energy prices over a year ago.  

Moves by the Kremlin to nationalize the country’s energy sector by pressuring a Royal Dutch Shell-led consortium to relinquish control of the Sahalin-2 natural gas project to Russia’s state-controlled monopoly Gazprom, and Putin’s meetings with Arab leaders last month to explore the creation of a “natural gas cartel” demonstrate an authoritarian view of energy management that is undeniably confrontational. Putin’s message to the world is clear – energy resources can, and will, be used as a tool to shape foreign policy and forcibly influence countries. 

Although not an energy exporter to the U.S., China continues to complicate Washington’s global energy security. In April 2006, Chinese President Hu Jintao signed a number of bilateral agreements involving the future delivery of Saudi oil in exchange for Chinese weapons. The purpose of this alliance was not only to secure a long-term supply of energy for China’s burgeoning economy, but to offset existing U.S. energy alliances in the Middle East by influencing the “House of Saud.” One year earlier, the Beijing regime signed an unprecedented US$70 billion, 25-year natural gas agreement with nuclear-obsessed Tehran.  

Beijing’s quest for energy has recently led it to the shores of the U.S. With the help of communist Cuba, Chinese companies are performing what is known as “slant drilling” 50 miles off the Florida Keys, tapping into oil reserves located in U.S. sovereign territory. China has also attempted to secure significant amounts of oil and natural gas from top U.S. suppliers Canada and Mexico. And on the African continent, Beijing’s policy of turning a “blind eye” to the internal politics of countries it does business with has contributed to needless civilian deaths in countries such as the Sudan, Zimbabwe and Nigeria.   

Then there is the case of America’s fifth largest crude exporter, Venezuela. Last week, the country’s anti-American President Hugo Chavez delivered on an earlier promise to seize foreign oil operations in the energy-rich Orinoco Belt, saying, “Open investment will never return.” With no other options available to confront Latin America’s “Little Fidel,” U.S. companies ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Britain’s BP, Norway’s Statoil and France’s Total agreed to cede operational control, transferring power to Chavez’s growing oil cartel. The rise in energy prices over the past several years – from US$18 a barrel in 2001 to US$67 today – has enriched Venezuela’s coffers, with oil revenues increasing 100 percent from 2002 to 2006. There is a very good chance this troubling trend will continue in the near future. 

The current energy transition presents an immediate threat to the U.S. and its allies in Western Europe and Asia. The prospect of severe global energy disruptions, the further nationalization of existing energy resources and the formation of energy-based, anti-American alliances present a threat to the global competitive equation. As this transition becomes more acute, other energy rich countries, as well as non-aligned nations sympathetic to their views and in need of energy themselves; will join this anti-American movement.  

With foreign petroleum products expected to provide 70 percent of U.S. energy needs in the coming decades, energy conservation, independence and diversity have become paramount initiatives. An aging refinery infrastructure, increased domestic gasoline consumption, unexpected distribution disruptions and dwindling oil and gasoline reserves have pushed the U.S. to the edge. In reality, the country is only one major disruption away from a very serious energy problem that could have wide-ranging consequences. If the perfect storm does occur – a lethal combination of the items mentioned previously and a military confrontation with Iran – the results will be immediate and extremely painful for all Americans.  

President Bush has said that U.S. dependence on overseas oil is a “foreign tax on the American people.” On this issue, he is right. Polls of the American public consistently show that energy dependence is on their minds. Recognizing this, definitive action must be taken by Washington to remedy this crisis by protecting all of America’s vital energy interests throughout the world. Otherwise, our inability as an independent country to react to dynamic world events will be severely curtailed, leading to inescapable and uncontrollable global scenarios.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Israel’s Fifth Column

Israel’s Fifth Column
By David Bedein
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 16, 2007

There are more than one million Israeli Arabs — more than 15 percent of Israel’s population. These Israeli citizens have shown widespread support for Iran, causing the Israeli security establishment to worry. Israel’s General Security Service (GSS), the Israeli equivalent of the FBI, has warned about an alarming increase of subversive activity on behalf of Iran by Israel’s Arab minority.

This past week, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs issued a report entitled “Iran Is Building ‘Hamastan’ in Gaza,” which documents how Iran is establishing a base in nearby Gaza, premised on “a growing strategic alliance between Iran and the radical Palestinian forces…”

It has not been forgotten that the PLO, the harbinger of local Arab revolution, was the first sponsor of the successful Iranian revolution. Iran was the first and only Islamic nation ever to hand over an Israeli embassy to the PLO. And Iran now emerges as the greatest champion of Palestinian Arab Islamic nationalism.

Last summer, the elected officials of the Israeli Arab members of the Israeli Knesset Parliament showed support for Hezbollah’s missile attacks on Israel. Since then, Israel’s security establishment has launched its own investigation of Israel’s Arab minority.

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with GSS Director Yuval Diskin and other high-ranking security officials concerning the Arab minority in Israel, where the GSS provided a report to the Prime Minister concerning the continual decline in its identification with the state, the rise of subversive elements within it and the dangers that lie therein. Some high-ranking security officials said that the turn of events within the Arab minority constituted “the real, long term strategic threat” to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

The GSS reports there has been a rise in the Israeli Arabs’ identification with the Palestinian terrorist organizations, and a rise in their identification with Iran, Hezbollah and other groups that reject the legitimacy of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. All of this is done publicly and openly, and has been accompanied by incitement by the local Israeli Arab political leadership. That incitement has not been yet been dealt with by Israel’s law enforcement community. The GSS assessment indicates that the separatist and subversive trends that are reflected by the Israeli Arab leadership are liable to set the agenda and sweep the masses behind them.

One American organization that provides financial help to the Israeli Arab community to develop itself as a “Palestinian religious and national ethnic community” is the New Israel Fund. The GSS is now looking into the work of the NIF to determine whether this outside organization is an element that encourages subversive activity amongst the Israeli Arab population.

THE FEAR FACTOR

68 percent of the Jewish population in Israel fears the possibility that Israeli Arabs will begin a popular rebellion, while 63 percent do not enter Arab communities in Israel, according to a new poll issued this week by Haifa University. Meanwhile, 64.4 percent of Israeli Jewish citizens fear that the Arab citizens endanger national security because of their high birth rate, while 83.1 percent fear Israeli Arabs support of the Palestinians’ struggle and 73 percent believe that most of the Arab citizens will be more loyal to the state of Palestine than to the state of Israel.

Clearly the Israeli Fifth Column is hard at work trying to tear the country apart — and Iran is more than happy to help.

Judge the Arabs by what they do.

Judge the Arabs by what they do.

By Ted Belman

Ami Isseroff, in his article, Palestinian Unity Agreement: Significance for Israel and Peace, writes,

    If the agreement succeeds in bringing unity, it is a big victory for Saudi Arabia, and may make the Saudis the prime godfathers of the Palestinian Authority. That would certainly be a positive step, as it would wean the Palestinian Authority from Iranian influence. Ending Hamas-Fatah rivalry is, in the long run, good for Israel and good for peace. Those who think Israel gains anything from the chaos in the West Bank and Gaza are sorely mistaken. The rivalry is also expressed in persistent contests between the groups to see who can be the most anti-Israel. It ensures that no Palestinian leader can make any concessions, because he (and not she in this case – PC has not come to Muslim society) will be branded a traitor. The illogic of anti-Zionist propaganda inevitably blames Israel for the situation at well, and reports that the “occupation” is responsible for Palestinian deaths and Palestinian misery.

It requires a giant step to conclude that this agreement “would wean the Palestinian Authority from Iranian influence.” How so? The Iranians and Syrians are still in the picture and probably were involved in working out the agreement. If Ami is right, the agreement would never have been reached.

As for his take that chaos is bad for Israel and peace I have to disagree. Ami believes that peace is possible. Even if we agree to the Saudi Plan we won’t have peace but we will be much weaker to fight the next battle. Why does he assume that the unity government will make concessions. The anti-Zionist propaganda will continue and probably increase.

The longer there is chaos in the territories, the less likely Palestine will be created and the more likely Israel will decide to annex tJudea and Samaria.

But he correctly concludes,

It is almost certain that various Fatah groups as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad will still have their own arms, and the Hamas Charter will still call for eradication of Israel. The renewed eruption of internecine fighting, as well as renewal of extensive terror attacks, is therefore not precluded, and it is unlikely that Hamas will agree to any peace deal with Israel.

As long as each group has its own armed capability, there is no way for the Palestinian authority to live up to any agreement it makes to stop terror.

[..] The agreement is designed as an enabler, to eliminate the Western sanctions against the Palestinians, without really changing any policies. It is a masterful implementation of the disastrous concept, “creative ambiguity,” which is another name for saying nothing. Therefore, it “allows Saudis to say” that the Palestinians support the Arab peace initiative. Conversely, it also “allows Hamas to say” that they do not agree to peace with Israel and will never agree to it. It allows the Palestinians to say that they “respect agreements” including the quartet roadmap, and it is supposed to allow the Quartet to say that the Palestinians are now in compliance. However, it will also allow the Palestinians to continue armed resistance. Everyone can say what they like. It is only what they do that matters.

The problem arises because from the beginning, Israel and the Quartet had incorrect criteria for the new government. It doesn’t matter what they say, it matters what they do. Even if Hamas agrees to “commit” to past agreements, it is not necessarily meaningful. PLO signed the same agreements and is “commited” to them, but doesn’t fullfil its obligations under those agreements. Despite repeated pledges of Fatah leaders to end violence, the Fatah Al-Aqsa brigade sent people to blow themselves up in Israel. Despite repeated agreements to unify security commands, they were never unified – not under Arafat, not under Abbas, and certainly not under the Hamas government. Despite repeated pledges to recognize the existence of Israel, PLO and Mr. Abbas still insist on full right of return for Palestinian refugees, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Support for the Palestinian Authority and the peace process should be based on actions, and not on words.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 10:28 am |

At last! A clear view Ex-CIA Director: PA Arabs Don’t Deserve State

At last! A clear view

Rachel Neuwirth
James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, in an interview with Israel National Radio, has spoken a blunt truth.

Asked his opinion on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the former CIA director recommended that it not happen in the coming decades. He said that though the Jewish presence in this region precedes the Moslem claim – “for some Muslims like Arafat to deny that Jews were ever present here is idiotic” – the Moslems also have national rights in the area.

Openly avoiding the question of the nature or borders of a Palestinian state, he emphasized his opinion that “the Palestinians should not be granted the right to statehood until they start to treat Israeli Jews who settle in the West Bank as fairly as Israel treats its Muslim citizens.”

“An Arab Muslim living in Jaffa,” Woolsey said, “enjoys freedom of speech, religion, and expression, and can vote for his representatives in the Knesset, and doesn’t go to sleep worrying that some government element might come and kill him. I think that once the Palestinians start treating Jewish settlers with that same degree of humanity – and they’re very, very far from doing that now – at that point I think we have to seriously consider how they could have some degree of self-governing. I won’t get into the question of borders, but what I think is that the Palestinians must be held to the same standards as Israel regarding how they treat the other. I am sure this will be many decades from now, though, because their children are taught the Wahhabi doctrine of being suicide bombers and the like.”

Arabs, tribes, Iraq and Islam

Arabs, tribes, Iraq and Islam

Posted by tmatt

Shia1Day after day the drumbeat of sectarian violence continues.

Iraq is dividing along sectarian lines. True or false? The alleged nation of Iraq faces a civil war that, in the end, will take place along lines that are religious, even if that fact makes journalists — and American political leaders — uncomfortable. Who knows the doctrinal and cultural differences between Shiites and Sunnis? Does this information matter?

The recent Newsweek cover story “Iraq’s Young Blood” about the next generation of fighters in Iraq was a perfect example of poignant, brilliant journalism that still avoided the crucial questions about the role of religion in the region’s past, present and future. What are young Sunnis taught about the beliefs of the Shiites? What are young Shiites taught about the Islamic beliefs of the Sunnis?

However, that same issue also included a short Christopher Dickey essay — “There’s No Stopping Iraq’s Bloody Cycle: Iraq’s vendettas could haunt the West for years” — that made some crucial points. Here is the opening:

Blood feuds flourish where family ties are strong and the rule of law is weak. Add the righteousness of competing faiths along with fierce memories of ancient wrongs and you have the makings of savage, seemingly endless conflicts from Northern Ireland to the Balkans, the lake regions of Africa to the arid Holy Land. And Iraq — well, Iraq is in a class by itself: a breeder reactor where explosive hatreds were both incited and contained by Saddam Hussein’s brutality, only to become an uncontrolled chain reaction after the U.S.-led invasion liberated both the country and its vendettas. Arab culture cannot be solely blamed for the furies that have been unleashed in Iraq since 2003. But it guarantees they will not be soon, or easily, tamed.

The tradition of “an eye for an eye” is so ancient and dangerously ingrained among the desert Arabs that 1,400 years ago the Qur’an called on good Muslims to forgo vengeance in order to expiate their sins. But the old codes of honor remained, and in the most troubled parts of Iraq today, increasingly, they prevail. When governments cannot or will not protect the people, then families, clans, tribes, gangs and militias will. (Indeed, among the Shiites of Karbala, gang rule has a history as old and complex as the mafia in Sicily.)

The key in this essay is the way Dickey uses the phrase “Arab culture” in place of references to Islam. In other words, the fighting is tribal, not essentially religious.

That is an interesting statement. Is it true? Is the Sunni vs. Shiite conflict so old that the Arab tribes are now divided along lines of blood as well as doctrine? While we are at it, are the Shiites of Iraq divided from the Shiites of Iran by tribe as well as language and nationalism? What happens to the “Arab” factor if the conflict broadens across the region and, thus, involves Kurds, Turks, Egyptians and others? Would a conflict between Iran and Saudia Arabia be, essentially, tribal? National?

Where do tribal customs end and religious beliefs begin? And the ultimate question: Is the rule of law possible under these conditions?

The end of Dickey’s essay is especially sobering. The Bush White House seemed to think that secular government was the answer. Did the people of Iraq agree? The bottom line: Do Muslims want to join the Western world?

In the 1960s, soldiers and dictators of the Arab world had imagined they were integrating their societies into the West, leaving behind the rule of clans, the dogmas of faith. Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party grew out of that trend. But the 12-year embargo of Iraq after his disastrous 1990 invasion of Kuwait eroded the facade of modernity. People reverted to dependence on tribes and mafias for their economic survival.

Enough vendettas have since been launched in Iraq to keep its communities at each other’s throats for years. And America’s role in spawning them guarantees that memories of the conflict will long outlast our presence on the ground. Iraq’s Arab neighbors already fear that many among their vast populations of young people — humiliated by the stagnation of monarchy, dictatorship, occupation and defeat — will seek dignity through violence just as young Iraqis are doing. They will call it jihad, of course, even if the spirit that moves them is more akin to Crips and Bloods than to the Qur’an.

Once again, we face a basic question: How can journalists (and our politicians) discuss Islam without exploring the beliefs, customs and tribes that are at the hearts of the divisions within Islam?