These pictures were taken by Iran's Mission to the UN - today. A last minute rally was organized by AMCHA at Iran's Mission to the UN to protest against Iran's genocidal incitement, nuclear program, and state sponsored terrorism. The few but proud showed up to voice their outrage at what is going on in Iran. Hopefully there will be more rallies like this to get the attention of the media regarding the abomination that is allowed to occur in Iran.
Please see the rest of the pictures right here!
Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.
I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.
The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?
Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)
Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.
If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.
I was thinking about this the other day...
I am offended by the word "peace." Why should the VICTIM have to worry about 'peace'? Groups such as "Peace Now", and "Jewish Voice for Peace" claim to be even handed and claim to want peace... but by their very focus on ISRAEL as the source of problems guarantees there will NOT be peace. If you look at the history of the Mideast conflict, almost every time, Israel acted either defensively or in retaliation for slaughter of its citizens. Whether it acted in the right way is debateable, what is not debateable from a historical REALITY perspective is WHY Israel has acted. Many people do not actually live in reality and prefer to deny history; we both know that historical reality is not a friend to Arabs as well as Arab apologists. But still, the facts are the facts.
Those who advocate for 'peace' would really ONLY be advocating it from the perspective of putting the onus on Palestinians to stop their low-grade constant conflict and stop teaching hate to their children. The checkpoints did not exist until the Intifada; people forget that. The 'wall' did not exist until the Intifada; again, people forget that. The entire 'occupation' (what a loaded word!) exists solely due to Israel's defensive Six Day War.
'Peaceniks' who really are peaceful would realize Israel has a right to defend itself and stop pretending that settlers are per se evil and the reason for the problems. They would see the root of the problem and demand an end to it. The 'peace' groups I cited, in their failure to do this, necessarily promote war. They make 'peace' an offensive word. Don't sell that 'peace' to ME or to Israel - sell it to those who are preventing peace.
This brings me to a question of dialogue and debate. I believe that dialogue and debate will be counterproductive. I thought about it, as a result of dialogue and debate over the course of a year and a half online, I have become actually more set in my political opinions, and more convinced than ever that the other side are either brainwashed or antisemites, and basically not reachable. Let me put it this way; the other side is not merely claiming "Israel, you overreacted in this situation/that situation." They say "Israel, you are rotten to the core and have no right to exist!" So what "dialogue" is there with them? What "debate" is there with them? How do you "debate" your own existence?
And so I believe that the topic of Israel should simply not even be debated with these cretins, thugs, and brainwashed masses. We will NOT change them, and if anything, make them worse. Instead, I believe the best AND ONLY topic to discuss with Arabs is Lebanon. A secondary topic is possibly Iran. Lebanon is a country on the brink; anyone who actually believes in a future for the Lebanese is against a common (and existential) enemy of Israel's: Hezbollah and Syria. There are banners all over Lebanon that say "I love life." So, promote THAT. Promote an anti-Hezbollah culture of Lebanon, promote love of life and anti-hate; do not even discuss Israel as it will simply enflame passions and lead to nothing. Then maybe have a debate about the way to bring about peace in Lebanon. Bring together a broad spectrum of Lebanese and Arab society that is devoted against the hate. Then, maybe once they are anti-Hezbollah hate, they will start to be pro-Israel. But it has to be side-strike. The same goes with Iran; the Iranian mullahs are anti-Israel, but more than that, they are anti-Iranian. So bring together a broad spectrum of people who again love life and are devoted against the mullahs.
If you do a survey of the Mideast, other than Israelis, the only other countries filled with sophisticated people who love life are Lebanon (at least Sunni/Druze/Maronites, and a minority of Shia) and Iran. They can be reached, and should be reached. And the debate should not be Israel's existence or whether Israel leads a vast cabal controlling world foreign policy, as that debate will lead to nowhere. It should be over the future of a free, just, and pluralistic Lebanon and Iran.
Thoughts?
This is like some sort of bizarro dream. They really are laughing at us. Iran is to make a movie and book about the British soldiers. I am sure this will be a real "explosion" at the box office, aren't you?
This is the world we live in, folks. The Speaker of the House travels to Syria with a shmata on her head, and then announces she wants to go to Iran. This is our reality.
Astonishing.
Hi all,
I just wanted to link you to a MUST READ article written by Caroline Glick. It details exactly how the US/UK/Germany/Israel must act if it hopes to win the war against the Islamofanatics.
Here's the start of the brilliance:
The footage of the British hostages thanking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his hospitality and forgiveness, like the footage of Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi covering her head in a scarf while on a visit to Damascus, was enough to make you sick.
Must we lose this war?
Read the whole thing!
My analysis is exactly the same as Glick's though I didn't have the wisdom to phrase things as perfectly as she did. It is disgusting to see the world gloating over the "benevolence" of Iran, compared to the "evil" of Abu Ghraib and the US. That is the end result of what happened. And meanwhile, what of the British hostages? They said after they got back to safe harbor that they were blindfolded and isolated, and forced to make the remarks they made on TV.
But none of this matters, and the world doesn't care.
Iran had its PR coup, and they exposed the West as weak, useless, feckless, and inept.
Please read Caroline Glick, and her analysis on what must be done. I would love your feedback!
As mentioned previously, I met with the Deputy National Security Advisor to the United States, Elliott Abrams, a few weeks ago. He was at a local area synagogue, and spoke after Friday night services. The main subject of his talk was Jews in government. Essentially, his claim was that from the 1960s-1990s, it was basically a nonissue to see a Jew in government. However, with the Walt and Mersheimer paper, suddenly, the outside community (not the Bush administration) sees it as a problem that Jews are in government. He said that there are now college courses at elite universities that look at whether the "Israel lobby" and AIPAC control US foreign policy. The Walt/Mersheimer paper is read, and then the Dershowitz response paper is read. Both are 'debated,' to determine the 'truth' of whether AIPAC and the "Israel lobby" control foreign policy. Imagine that. Imagine if there was a class where Holocaust denial literature was read on par with Elie Wiesel's books, and the "truth" of it were debated. Such is the state of modern American academia. Truly frightening. Abrams said that he feared for the future generations, saying he saw antisemitism on the rise not just abroad, but here on American soil, in American academia.
After his talk, there were many questions and answers posed. I raised my hand and asked the first question. My question was: "In light of the fact that Yassir Arafat's uncle was a Nazi who was an architect of the Final Solution, and that Fatah's roots are indeed in Nazism (and there is no indication that Abbas/Abu Mazen thinks any differently)...why is Israel and the US fooling itself by pretending that somehow Abu Mazen is 'moderate' and should be 'negotiated with'?"
Abrams's response was very instructive. He said that Abu Mazen may not be a moderate by "our standards," but he was someone who at least "wanted to talk." However, Abu Mazen has little power, and so it's basically pointless to speak to him until and unless he does have power. He then went on a long sidenote about how moderates rarely do end up in power in these sorts of nations. According to this 'logic,' then it would be up to the US and Israel to do all that is possible to empower Abu Mazen.
But here is where you kind folks will be enlightened. After the talk, a little birdie told me that some people close to Elliott Abrams completely disagree with his characterization of Abu Mazen as "someone who wants to talk," and a "relative moderate," but could not say so publicly. This little birdie also thanked me for saying what I said publicly.
Interesting, no?
Other tidbits from Abrams...
He spoke of Iran and its nuclear threat, and then said that the Democrats wanted to put language into a bill that would take the military option OFF the table for Iran. He said (and I agree with him) that the only way to be effective with Iran is to keep the military option on the table, and he admonished many Jewish organizations who remain silent about this. He also spoke support of the democracy project in these Muslim nations. He believes that democracy is ultimately the answer, since no democracy is a threat to the world.
Afterwards, I privately approached Mr. Abrams. I said to him "Mr. Abrams, respectfully, how can you say that democracy is the answer, when in Egypt, if there were fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would be elected TOMORROW? And the same is true in most of the Muslim world. Democracy? What about Indonesia, where the "democratically" elected president said the Holocaust never happened? What about Iraq, where it looks likely that there will be sharia law? Islam itself is both a political system and a religion. Isn't THAT the problem?"
His response was basically that Egypt is in the state it is in because Mubarak (president of Egypt) has suppressed all opposition parties, and hence the ONLY choice now is the Muslim Brotherhood. He said democracy is a long term, not immediate solution there. Then he said that the Indonesian PM who denied the Holocaust was, after all, voted OUT. He spoke ultimately a line about optimism. And he did so privately - with no one else nearby to even listen in. In short, this is what he really believes. I also mentioned Sandmonkey (with regards to democracy in Egypt) - and yes, Mr. Abrams has heard of him.
There you have it, folks. An inside track into the mind of a top official in the Bush administration, and my interaction with him. I hope you enjoy this read.
I should say that after the talk with Mr. Abrams, I spoke with a director from the Obsession movie (who attended this event), about radical Islam and the like. It was interesting that he did not know much to anything about India. He also thought Robert Spencer's words were "extremist," but he has read his books.
My next post will be a detailed rendering of my attendance at the US-Indian-Israeli relations event.
Sorry I have not been posting...I just needed to take a break. But I am back, sort of. I just wanted to post what I wrote on Tsedek's blog. I think you may enjoy reading it. I am curious what you all think!
If you want to hold Israel to a higher set of moral standards, that is your right, as an Israeli and a Jew. My only point is that the world has no right to similarly engage in such conduct. I also think that in YOUR OWN judgement, you seem to be missing the boat on the genocidal threat that Israel faces.
It is inhumane and counter-productive to just go around shooting civilians for no reason. However, it is similarly inhumane to let Israeli civilians die because of a negligence and/or lack of desire to protect Israeli civilians.
I do know Israel is guilty of only ONE of those crimes - the former. (see: capitulation at Sderot) Individual IDF soldiers, as opposed to the state, are guilty of engaging in human rights violations. I am fully aware of this. But this is not because the state glorifies violence or the killing of civilians. Rather, I view the reason to be related to Israel's patheticness in defending its civilians.
I spoke to an IDF combat soldier who fought in Lebanon in 2006, and he said that if he wanted to kill a civilian, he could have ON HIS OWN, and there is little the state would have done about it. This certainly is appalling. (He did not commit such acts.)
But why does this happen?
I believe that individual acts of barbarism on the part of IDF soldiers is directly related to a feeling of helplessness soldiers have when they are told to stand down, when they see rocket launch pads in Gaza. It is the inevitable result. Normally kind, decent people devolve into barbarians when they see the state has failed them.
This is not limited to Israel. Witness the mayhem in Gujarat, India, after the state failed to act after the Godhra train burning. (More on Gujarat right here.)
This is what Israel has in store for it if it continues down the road towards capitulation. It will not be pretty.
You are fearful of 'collective punishment' of Gaza residents. I say that this is of a secondary concern, as the actions in Gaza are a fraction of what needs to happen. (no, I do not mean nuke the whole place - I mean GO AFTER THOSE TRYING TO KILL JEWS) Until Israel does the right thing, there will be increasing numbers of IDF soldiers who go off the deep end and kill civilians, in some misguided notion of vigilante justice. That is my prediction.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I fear what will happen if the world continues on this current path of capitulation.
These fears become all the more immediate when you wonder what soldiers in Iraq will do, knowing 15 of their comrades in arms were taken hostage by Iran, and Britain is hemming and hawing and muttering "WHAT SHALL WE DO?" in response.
I see bad times ahead.
Okay, I want to start by speaking briefly of non-Israeli news items resuming my discussion of my amazing Israeli adventure.
1) GWB had his state of the union, and I was asleep and have no idea what he said, nor do I really care. That said, feel free to read the transcript.
2) Hillary Clinton announced she is running for prez. I predict she will get the nom, and Obama will be her running mate. I also have no intention of voting for her. If it is Hillary versus a typical Republican, given I live in a non-swing state, I am considering voting Libertarian simply in protest. I predict she will win, because this will go along with my general prediction I made in the year 2000 that Hillary will win in 2008, thereby creating at minimum 24 years straight of presidents related to each other. (Bush Sr (4), Clinton (8), GWB (8), Hillary (4) = 24 years) Who says there are no royal families in America?
3) Lebanon is in chaos. There was a nationwide strike and general mayhem yesterday. It seems that this was basically called off today, in order to avert another civil war that might possibly drag on another 25 years. It seems hundreds of people were injured, many with gunshot wounds, and three were killed. I wrote the following about it on Sandmonkey's blog:
I wish I was surprised, but I am not. This is a long time in the making.You are right, SM, the ideology is one of destruction, not creation.
The good Lebanese people want to create a functioning government and society, and they are hated for it. It is heartbreaking to watch. I do not know what the answer to this is…it seems like the destruction of what was a beautiful possibility in Lebanon is inevitable.
I want to say that I wish I had the chance to visit Lebanon while I was in Israel (I should say I wish that the Israeli-Lebanese border allowed for that!), but alas, I did see the antennae from Lebanon! It breaks my heart to see a nation with such promise and with people who really have a *zest for life* slowly cracking under the strain of extremism. Of course, the following abomination breaks my heart most of all: the Aoun Hizballah supporter.
This woman is the epitome of Lenin's 'useful idiot.' Actually, in many ways she reminds me of Rachel Corrie.
4) Iran is not letting nuclear inspectors into their country. In a related item, Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and candidate for prez, blamed the JOOOOOOZ for pushing the nation into war. I am horrified that such a mainstream politician, and not just some nutjob extremist (such as David Duke or Cynthia McKinney) is actually blaming the JOOOOZ for controlling foreign policy. The New Republic wrote an excellent response to Wes Clark's antisemitism. In more related news, Newt Gingrich wrote a great response to the Iranian crisis on Ynet news. (thanks to Raccoon)
Despite this all, I maintain my optimism that good will triumph over evil. I maintain my belief that, in the long run, Iran's suicidal ideology will not win out, cannot win out. Let me quote what I wrote earlier, which I feel is especially true in light of Iran's recent developments.
I believe this now more than ever. Perhaps I have to believe it, to get through each day.There will always be horrors in the world. There will always be genocide in every generation.
But there also will be goodness, kindness, and love. And perhaps it's not possible to
take one without the other. Perhaps it is all part of the crazy, seemingly incomprehensible world that we live in, and the only way to exist and not go mad is to focus on what each individual can change in their own lives to shine just that little candle of light into the unfathomable darkness.
This is what is on my mind at the moment. I know there are other news items, but these are the ones jumping out at me at present. What do you think about it all?
