Storm Troopers

Article by Akiva:

[snip]

When Ariel Sharon came to power and decided on a radical path directly counter to his election mandate, he remembered the civil obedience movement. He would not let a minor thing like public opinion or protest affect his plans. So he ordered the preparation of a new security unit. Yassam. Young men, non-religious, preferably non-Jewish, trained to deal with protest. Their methods? Not arrest, not crowd control, not tear gas or water cannon. No. They trained exclusively with riot gear and just-barely non-lethal violence techniques. Metal batons, armored fists, causing broken bones and head serious head wounds. Stun grenades and huge oversized riot control horses for charging crowds. Black armor, grey uniforms, black shielded helmets, black armored gloves, black jack boots. No id, no badge, crew cuts. No females, no yalmuka's, no handcuffs (no arrests). Beatings, rage, trampling, that's their training. Religious may not apply, Zionists are forbidden. They exist to break the will (and bones) of protestors. They are the Yassamnikim, the Israeli government's private storm troopers. They were deployed in Gaza, but only at the 'severe' protesting points. They were deployed in Chevron to clear the Jewish owned market, the shuk. And they were deployed in Amona in all their gory (sic), trampling, beating, breaking. They physically threw a friend's 15 year son out a second story window (they were sitting waiting to be annoying by being dragged away). He survived, no bones broken, but they broke his spirit, today he's thrown away his kippah and his observance. They exist to break bones and break spirit. Their name is well earned. Storm troopers. This week, they are deployed to the ultra-religious neighborhoods of Meah Shearim and Geulah in Jerusalem. Tonight reports are they are literally storming yeshiva's and beating the SITTING student population. Report here. Storm troopers.

UPDATE (Red Tulips): Evidently the 'storm troopers' are guarding against the protestors against the gay pride parade. I believe in the gay pride parade and disagree with Akiva on this one. Given that he is glossing over the FACT that at last year's gay pride parade, there was a stabbing committed by a Haredi Jew that injured three people, he loses credibility. Police presence is necessary, and his cause is not just. That said, it is possible that the police are going overboard here. However, his cause is hardly the sort of 'civil rights' cause of Gandhi that he makes it out to be. It is anti-civil rights.

My general thoughts on the Dem victory

As I previously had written, I was rooting for the Dems to win, though I didn't care a hell of a lot. I certainly do not believe, as Entercenter does, that this was the 'most important election, ever.' So, why did I root for the Dems to win, and what changes do I see upon the horizon? I rooted for the Dems to win for a few primary reasons:

1. The Republicans had lost their right to govern, given their myriad of scandals and inability to keep the bloated budget in check.
2. I believe in checks and balances and a balance of power.
3. I am hoping for some accountability and subpoenas to fly around - at least with regards to intelligence failures in Iraq.
4. I am hoping for gridlock and a minimum amount of bills to be passed.
5. The Dems need to show the nation what they stand for, and quit being just a gadfly - they need to have a stake in the future of this country, just as Republicans do. This will hopefully unify the nation.

What changes do I see upon the horizon?

1. The budget should be tighter, as it was when Clinton was president and the Repubs were in Congress. The idea is that with checks and balances, the president will threaten to veto a pork-ridden budget, thus requiring a tighter, leaner budget. Furthermore, the Dems swept into office on the notion of fiscal responsibility. This is a positive change.
2. Subpoenas flying around will bring some accountability back to the White House. Again, this is positive.
3. Immigration reform will not happen. Any serious research into alternative fuel sources will not be undertaken. We will still be in Iraq. Gays will still be forbidden from the military, and there will not be any gay marriage. Abortion stays as is with the various restrictions in place. There will not be any serious social changes, just as there were no (serious) changes under Bush and the Repubs! This is neutral.
4. The minimum wage will be raised. This is a positive change, despite Professor Kurgman's 'reservations.' ;-)
5. We will continue to fund the UN, and the Dems will push for a more doveish UN ambassador. This is negative. The relations with Israel may be somewhat more sour. Again negative.

So what do I think overall? There is a net positive for America, but certainly not the 'dawn of a new era,' as many Dems would like to think. Despite Entercenter's proclamations, this is not a case of 'welcome back, America.' America will be relatively the same after Dems have taken office that they were prior to them taking office. That said, Sandmonkey has an interesting take on this election. He thinks it is a net positive for the Republicans. This is what Jonah Goldberg had previously written. Personally, I think it is a wash whether it helps or hurts the Republicans. It helps them because the Dems will likely not make major changes, and then the state of the economy will blamed on them in 2008. It hurts the Repubs, because now the Dems no longer look like a pathetic and defeated party. They are riding on the wave of success, and they need that to even have a chance in 2008. Moreover, they finally have a platform to air their views, and if they have anything of note to say, this will help them. Anyway, that is my analysis. We shall see what the future brings!

Rumsfeld gone; Iran-Contra in

As we all know by now, Rumsfeld has resigned after the Dem victory two nights ago. In his place is Robert Gates. Well, who is this Mr. Gates? He has the pedigree - he was the Secretary of Defense under President Ford, and he was the CIA director under Reagan. But is this the right pedigree? Global security.org goes through Robert Gates's involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, and it is not pretty. Go read about it. What does the report say? It says that Robert Gates was head of the CIA and either knew what was going on concerning Iran-Contra, or he was ridiculously incompetent. The independent counsel did not have enough information to charge Mr. Gates, but there is substantial evidence to worry about his involvement in this black mark on American history. Why does this matter? Because it gives credance to Francisco Gil-White's theory that the US is no ally to Israel. Lest we forget what Iran-Contra was, it was the US government's arming of Iran while saying they supported Iraq. They armed Iran while ostensibly fighting Hizballah. The US government used the proceeds to fund the anti-communist contras in Nicaragua. Gates was the CIA director at the time this occurred. This is very troubling. But there's more! Not only is Gates in, but so is Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, who fought alongside Manuel Noriega against, you guessed it, the Contras! Ortega is now trying to calm investors after his electoral victory. More on Ortega. (he has sloppy hair) In any case, these are very interesting turns of events. You know the famous curse, "may you live in interesting times." UPDATE: More on Gates and Iran-Contra.

Time for the GOP to listen up!!

Now, that the election is over, it is time for Republicans to think about why they lost, and there is plenty to think about. One thing is that the fiscal conservatives have been abandoned for the religious right. Democrats are wise to consider that as they may want to push a progressive agenda, but hopefully the new class in Congress won't play that kind of ball game. Now, I present an article reminding Republicans that if they want me back, they may want to dump the Christianist crap and remember stuff like individual rights, fiscal conservativism, and that a number of close defeats for Republicans had Libertarians with enough votes to put the GOP dude over the top. Otherwise, maybe it is time to revive the Bourbon Democrats.

Apostasy hadith revealed and disputed by Ali Eteraz

Go read about it yourself. This is genuinely good news. I know Monkey Chops is angry with me for my opinions on Islam, but when I read things like this, I do feel encouraged. It is good to see Islamic scholars determine that a hadith that calls for the death penalty for apostasy should not be followed. I only hope that this is widely followed by other Muslims and Islamic nations.

ID cards

It appears El Blair is pushing ahead with his ID card scheme/scam. I am fundamentally opposed to any such move. It will undermine the British peoples relationship with the state. Instead of being independent of the State we will be required to have an ID card with every single piece of information about us on it and stored in a national database that the government would likely sell information from to banks and other intrested parties. Having an ID card will not stop Terrorism in the slightest. Indeed the determined terrorist would find and exploit loopholes. As it was the london tube bombings were carried out by British citizens, so having an ID card would not have stopped that attack. Terrorists blend into the community and only get outed as Terrorists if they carry out an attack or if the police stop an attack and arrest them. "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Benjamin Franklin Guardian comment is free NO2ID ID card's could fight illegal working arguement

Saddam sentenced to death; the elephant in the room is ignored

Saddam was recently sentenced to death - as most of you probably already know. I am a bit late to the table here, but I have to say the following... Saddam's sentence really will have little effect on the situation on the ground in Iraq NOW. He had no power by the time he was sentenced, and he leads no armies. It is a good thing that justice was done, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this will be a turning point for Iraq. Iraq is already gone. We already have installed a Shia dictatorship who abides by Sharia law. We are fighting and dying over in Iraq to support this. As per the usual, Jihad Watch explains things best. We are fighting and dying to protect a regime that is against our interests. Sad and sick. Zeyad over at Healing Iraq is distraught that Saddam is being sentenced at a time his country is in ruins. He is wistful for what was once his hope - to have Saddam sentenced at a time of a unified Iraq. Instead, he sees that the people celebrating Saddam's sentence are also celebrating Muqti Al-Sadr. Go read his commentary. The elephant in the room at Saddam's trial is that Saddam, however despicable he was (and he was despicable), still was more aligned with US interests than the current monstrosity over there. This is the elephant no one is willing to acknowledge. No one is willing to acknowledge the Sharia law that governs Iraq, and that we are protecting a government much more aligned with the Iran than the US. And so Saddam was sentenced to death - will this change anything in the slightest?

Voting day in the US

It is midterm elections in the United States. I am rooting for the Democrats to win for the simple reason that I am hoping for stalemate. My desire is for no bill to be passed whatsoever, and for the fiscal conservatism that will result from a divided government. I used to see Democrats as the party of social liberalism, but now, I cannot even see that. The Clinton White House was one with NAFTA, social security 'reform,' and also basically little effort to get off the oil addiction. (not to mention a 100% deplorable foreign policy) What about it's social policies? 'Don't ask, don't tell?' Please, what an utter joke! In short, I view the Democrats as 'Republican lite' when it comes to social issues. And so, I find it hard to actively support the Democrats anymore. I believe neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have what it takes to fight Islamofascism, and neither have any clear stance on domestic policies, either. The Democrats are somewhat better than the Republicans in their domestic policies, but so what? It's not enough. Just look at the Clinton White House as a perfect example of this. And so, yes, I am rooting for the Democrats, but very marginally. I just don't see it as this watershed event if they win. I don't see the Democrats as much of an improvement over the Republicans, and I am sure there will be playground squabbling and subpoenas, but I doubt there will be much change in our political landscape. Are we going to leave Iraq if the Dems win? No. Are we going to suddenly not have a deficit for the next fiscal year? Doubtful. Are we going to tackle immigration? No. Are we going to get off the oil dependency? No. Are we going to deal with the trade deficit? No. Are we going to accomplish much of anything of consequence? Very doubtful. This is why, far from rooting for positive change if the Dems win, I am merely rooting for no more legislation whatsoever. My hope is that Congress legislates nothing. That is the only positive thing I can see on the horizon. And so to you Culture for All readers, I say, go vote if you see a candidate worth voting for, but I certainly understand if you are so demoralized by the pathetic choices, that you decide to exercise your right not to vote. Do what you think is best. And do not let anyone make you feel guilty for exercising your civic right to abstain from the farce that are the midterm elections.

Jews as apes and swines

Ali Eteraz, on his blog, tried to reconsile the following statements that are in the Qu'ran, with his own notions of acceptance and religious pluralism: 5:60

Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”

2:65

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

7:166

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

Eteraz goes on to justify this with the following:

I started with verse 5:60 in his translation. Say: “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? They whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into apes and swine because they worshipped the powers of evil:” these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers]. The first thing I noted, that I had missed the first time around when looking at this verse, was the fact that there was no mention of Jews. “They whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned” were the ones turned into apes and swine “because they worshipped the powers of evil.” Of course, that did not mean this verse didn’t refer to Jews; oh no, it did refer to them. Except, it turned out, that this verse not only referred to Jews, but also to Christians. A subsequent pharse refers to “Men of God” and “Rabbis” - with the Men of God being a reference to Christians (especially in light of the fact that in verse 66 the Gospel is mentioned explicitly). My headache wasn’t gone, but I felt a little better. A book that did not discriminate in its epithets seemed a lot more palatable than a book that seemed to single out the most persecuted group in the history of mankind. Of course, it was not exactly a relief because now I was confronted with the fact that even more people were being referred to as descendants of apes and swine! The other two ape and swine verses were limited to Jews, but thankfully they offered a way of resolving the issue. Here is how Asad had rendered the two verses: 7:166

and then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said unto them: “Be as apes despicable!”

2:65

for you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, “Be as apes despicable!”

That “as” I knew quite well: “So am I as the rich, whose blessed key can bring him to his sweet locked up treasure” said Shakespeare. It was the “as” — the blessed “as” — of metaphor! I rejoiced a hundred times over. A metaphor means that the finality of language is absent. Being “as” something is not the same as being something. Could it be that the Quran was engaged in metaphor-making? If references to apes and swines were metaphors, it meant that the people being referred to had expressed the qualities of an “ape” and the qualities of a “pig.” Given the fact that in classical Arabic an ape was someone impulsive and a pig was someone stubborn, the metaphors seemed almost innocous (Especially since in all languages animals are used as referrants for certain qualities. Once we could learn what qualities classical Arabic invoked when referring to those animals, we could understand what the metaphor was referring to. Before I got too excited I wanted to be certain this “as” was not a mere blip on the radar. I had too many feelings hurt to risk hurting them again. So I went and consulted another translation, this one by Shakir. 7:166

Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

2:65

And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

Granted that the other two famous English translations (Yusuf Ali and Pickthall), did not have the metaphorical “as” in them the presence of the “as” in two of the more famous translations was enough to get my mind churning, and this time I was not reliant upon any authority except that of my God given reason. Suddenly I started to see patterns in the Quran that further cast light on these questionable (and certainly questionably used) verses. First, I noticed that 2:65 was part of a flashback sequence beginning at 2:47 where the Quran was addressing the Jewish and Christian communities in the time of Muhammad and asking them to revisit their own theological histories and their relationship with God. In other words, the addressees were the Jews and Christians of that time (those alive in the life of Muhammad). This is an important distinction because the Quran treats the time during which Muhammad was alive, different than all other times. Things that were allowed, or done, during the life of Muhammad, were often not allowed, or done, after his passing. Consider: Muhammad was allowed to have nine wives, but all other Muslims can, at most, have up to four (and even there the Quran question whether one can act favorably). Muhammad was required to stay up and pray all night; all later Muslims are not so required. Muhammad was the one allowed to exact jizya from the dhimmis; after his passing the distinction was to be abolished (but sadly was not — more on this some other day). Thus, the fact that the Quran directly addressed only those Jews and Christians alive in Muhammad’s time, was significant. Then, far more astoundingly, I noticed that the sequence starting at 2:47 actually opened with the incredible assertion: “O children of Israel! Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favoured you above all other people.” Pardon? This seemed to me like the clearest case of the Quran picking favorites, and the presence of verses that spoke favorably of Jews and Christians at the opening of the passage soothed me somewhat further. It more firmly established the conversational nature of the discussion in the Quran. I also recalled the hadith of the Prophet which stated that of all the Prophets, Moses was God’s favorite. At this point, I wondered whether there were other cases of “animalization” in the Quran. Whether one could truly conclude that the verses that bothered me were metaphors. While others may be aware of more, I found a couple of astounding ones. In Surah Fil, the Chapter of Elephant, in reference to an attack made upon Mecca before the birth of Muhammad, the Quran says, referring to those that fought the invading army from Yemen: 105:3

let loose upon them great swarms of flying creatures

Some Muslim commentators, the same ones that thought that ape and pig were references to literal transformation, have interpreted this verse to mean that a swarm of flying creatures, literally, were let loose upon the invaders. However, when considered in light of classical Arabic, we realize that the idea of a “great swarm of flying creatures” was a metaphor popular among the poets in the day to refer to the state of utter decimation wrought by a group of brave warriors (the metaphor was likely popular because birds (kites and vultures) often hung out near battle-fields). Another metaphor about animals was popular among poets of pre-Islamic Arabia. Although not in the Quran, this was the notion of the hamstrung camel, which was a metaphor for exile and loneliness. While the hamstrung camel does not appear in the Quran, the pregnant, kneeling, camel does (in the thirtieth Juz), and refers to a feeling of alienation. In any case, in the Chapter of the Elephant, in a non-Jewish/Christian context, the Quran had animalized a group of people (namely, the Quraysh which included the Prophet’s grandfather). This gave me further proof that the reference to apes and swines was a metaphorical representation of the qualities that certain group of historical people exhibited which were like the qualities exhibited by certain animals familiar to the Arabs and was not a suggestion that Jews or Christians were the descendants of such animals, nor was it meant to read that they were animals to this day. Under classical Arabic, anyone could be an ape (if they were stubborn) just as anyone could be a hamstrung or pregnant camel (if they were lonely).

To this I wrote the following: I think that to say that any group either ‘acts like apes’ or ‘becomes apes’ because they do not adhere to imaginery commandments given from en high is highly offensive. There is no excuse for Mohammed’s words. None. Zero. I see how you are making excuses, but I read the Koran and was gagging throughout at his moral pronouncements he made against others without even knowing Judaic or Christian law. How does he know what a good Jew is to do or a good Christian to do? And yet he says they are horrible for not being good Jews or good Christians. I would never proclaim a Muslim who does not keep Halal or who does not pray five times a day a bad Muslim. It is not for me to say. What gave Mohammed or anyone the right to make a pronouncement on the laws of another group, when he was a self professed illiterate who had only a base understanding of Judaism and Christianity? This is intolerance personified. It is not excusable. And it is rife throughout the Koran. You know this to be true. On page three of the Koran, he spoke of the Infidels. It is one of the most intolerant documents I have read. And where is the tolerance for other faiths? Through the ‘dhimmi’ laws? That is hardly tolerance. Maybe seventh century tolerance, but hardly 21st century tolerance. That does not mean that Islam cannot be reformed, but it will require excising or ignoring whole sections of the Koran. This is just a fact. This is a very difficult task for any reformer to make. Now, I know you are a tolerant person who clearly does not view Jews as apes or pigs. So how can you justify these words? ---------------- What do you think? Do Ali Eteraz's words make sense to you all, or are you not persuaded by his justification to the 'apes and pigs' quote in the Qu'ran?

UPenn president apologizes for her actions

I just thought I would send a quick note to say that the UPenn president has apologized for her actions. You can read her apology right here. She basically said she didn't notice the suicide bomb outfit as offensive amidst Michael Meyers and axe murdering costumes, and apologized for her transgression. I find this all very troubling, given UPenn president Guttmann was appointed to the National Security Higher Education Board, and is an advisor to the FBI. So does Democracy Project. But oh well, she said sorry. There are other, more important issues of the day!

Gunpowder Treason and Plot

Guy Fawkes and 12 other men conspired to blow up the Houses of Parliament on November 5th, 1605. Each year in England we remember the infamous Gunpower plot with bonfires and firework displays. [Crossposted]

Uncovered Meat, part II

Now, I don't know how many of you have heard of Tammy Bruce, but I find her infinitely fascinating, and I agree with her about 70-80% of the time, plus she's a cat lover, too :) In any event, she has an amusing response to the uncovered meat commentary. And even more near and dear to my heart is how she uses it for the sake of sweet, beautiful capitalism.

I love the Japanese :-)

Hard gay ramen - some people may find this offensive. Generic gay sterotype, but we all have to laugh at what we are, gay, straight, lesbian, bisexaul or asexual.

The language of climate chaos has gotten out of hand

According to Mike Hulme climate change choas doom mongering has got out of hand. This is from a BBC news Viewpoint article. "Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change."

Mike Hulme is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Source BBC news

Israeli lives do not matter

The president of the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school, recently had a Halloween party at her home. There were many guests who showed up in costume. One of them showed up in costume as a Palestinian suicide bomber. The president of this prestigious university happily posed with pictures with this person.

Think about the following...if this guy was dressed with a white hood in the KKK costume, would she gleefully pose for pictures? Would she be smiling if he dressed as Hitler? Why is it considered appropriate to dress as a Palestinian suicide bomber, and go to a party hosted by the president of an Ivy League School dressed this way? Do you think it would be so cool to see someone with a rope, faux-lynching a black person, at such a party? Obviously not. But yet, this is cool...

You see this guy training a little boy to be a future suicide bomber. This is at the party hosted by the president of the University of Pennsylvania.

More on the party right here.

I came across something else today that was very disturbing - Jerome a Paris over at Daily Kos posting the image of the Holocaust cartoon contest winner, and then saying this is a legitimate debate we should be having! Lest we forget, the images make it seem as if Israelis are perpetuating a genocide upon the Palestinians, and that they use the Holocaust as a justification for these actions.

This is the winning cartoon:

In fact, the truth is the opposite. Israel has been giving up land from day one, and the Palestinian population has grown by a factor of eight. Anyone who claims 'genocide' is usually stupid or believes Israelis should be the subject of a genocide. We know where Iran stands on that side of the debate. While I do not believe in censorship, it is clear this is NOT a legitimate debate to be having.

This is what Markos Moulitas had to say about Jerome a Paris's post:

Jerome is there to stand for the freedom of the repressive Ayatollahs to spread their anti-semite propaganda! What would they have done without him?

Most ridiculous diary ever. Worst timed diary ever. Do the right thing and get this shit off the site. Or, at the very least, wait until next Wednesday to repost.

In other words "This makes Democrats look bad, post it later!"

That's great to know. I just do not understand why it is that there is such a careless disregard for the lives of Israelis. Are they not human? Are they not made from the same flesh and blood as the rest of us? Why is there such a disdain for fellow humanity who are simply doing what they can to survive in the face of a genocidal death cult?

Cults of Personality

Now, I am probably just as guilty as anyone else for idealizing people and overlooking their negative aspects. In my misspent youth of 21, I was very critical of Pinochet's arrest, overlooking his violent overthrow and buying into ideological solidarity. Sure, one could justify some of his actions with The Prince, but that isn't the best selling point. Even in spite of Chile's current prosperity and the ineptness of Allende, my position was wrong. I supported a minor-league falangist without thinking about it properly. I realize my attitude was wrong and that regardless of whatever good may come, he must answer for his crimes. His takeover was not the Glorious Revolution of Charles II or even the Coup in Thailand. At least my admiration for Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun can be put into perspective as they were pre-industrial nomads and were vilified by propaganda that is slowly being discredited, plus they were both ass-kickers and visionaries. Now, my article is not about Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or Pinochet. It is a commentary about a socially acceptable monster: Che "t-shirt capitalism" Guevera. The Che Paradox I will find other sources beyond Capitalism Magazine, but I do so enjoy them :)

Neutron Iran?

Re: http://neutroniran.blogspot.com

...There is a third alternative and that is to drop neutron bombs not on Iranian nuclear sites but on Iranian and Syrian conventional forces — Iranian and Syrian armies and airfields. This would ruin the entire Iranian and Syrian militaries instantly and make an Israeli ground invasion all the way deep into Iran an overnight cakewalk...

Earth without people.....

New Scientist Report Nice to know the Earth will carry on regardless of our existence and eventually recover from our impact.

(Belated) Outrage of the day!

The actual poll results came out yesterday, but I want to share with you my utter outrage at the following fact... Egyptians no longer say America is the #2 most hated nation in the world!!! Big Pharoah and Sandmonkey have conflicting numbers. According to BP, the US is #3, behind Israel, and Denmark. According to SM, the US is #4, behind Israel, Denmark, and the UK!! What the freaking hell? I thought the US was the 'Great Satan'! And my lordy, 8% of Egyptians actually don't say Israel is an enemy? (hehe, some peace agreement!) What the hell? I am outraged about that as well! I demand that the US step up its Satanic death machines in order to get us back at the rightful spot behind the 'devil as a nation,' Israel. Actually, I think Tantor said it best, on Big Pharoah's blog...

As an American, I am absolutely outraged to fall to third place behind a bunch of Danes. Where is that Great Satan spirit I’ve come to expect from Egyptians? The next thing you know, you’ll hate Canada more than us. Maybe even France. OF COURSE, the US is going to invade Egypt. That’s all we talk about here. We’re going to steal the pyramids and move them to DisneyWorld. They’re already building the King Tut waterslide that will wrap around the Great Pyramid of Giza outside Orlando. We’re taking the Nile, too. Our Mojave Desert needs irrigation bad. Doesn’t anyone remember that we invaded Iraq to harvest organs from Iraqis to transplant into Americans? In fact, we’re building zombie Muslims out of all the collected organs left over and have infiltrated them back into Egypt. They walk the streets with you. Maybe that’s one behind you now. Don’t you realize we bombed ourselves on Sep 11 to make the Muslim world look bad and justify invading it all? Osama and Zawahiri are CIA agents, of course. Their real names are Bob Miller and Joe Spuggs, Hollywood actors who are now hiding out in a safe house in Las Vegas. Joe was in a bunch of B movie slasher flicks. We thought he’d make a good Bin Laden because when he was stoned he would get this creepy fanatic smile. We rewrote the Bible in Arabic, put “Koran” on the cover, and are distributing them all over the world, telling Muslims it is the true Koran. Man, are we laughing about that, especially after some Muslims from Cairo turned up at the Vatican asking where the Kaaba was. The Swiss Guard told them it had sprung a leak and was closed for repairs, come back later. And that two billion bucks we send to Egypt? It’s all coated with AIDS, every single bill. Come on, Egyptians, get your hate on. It’s your religious duty to hate America. WE’RE NUMBER ONE! And Don’t You Forget It, Tantor

The US obviously is doing something wrong to be a lowly #3 or #4 on the list of most hated nations. I despair at the state of the world! Dear Culture for All readers, HELP! What can the US do to regain its rightful spot on the #2 perch of most hated nations?

What can anyone say...

"A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married." - Jpost

Hitler and Stalin to perform at Nobel Peace Prize Awards

...Actually, no, Hitler and Stalin will not be performing at the Nobel Peace Prize Awards, but at this point, I would not be surprised! Can you imagine Stalin doing the 'Macarena'? Instead, Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam will be performing at the Nobel Peace Prize conference. This prize is the same dubious prize awarded to the mass murdering terrorist, Yassir Arafat. What is so bad about Yusuf Islam? Let's see...

• He supported the fatwa on Salman Rushdie (saying "If Rushdie turned up at my doorstep looking for help,] I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.")
• Stevens/Islam gave money to Hamas
• Stevens/Islam is banned from Israel for supporting Islamic Fundamentalism
• Stevens/Islam stated Judaism is a 'so-called' religion at a Hamas fundraising event

Such a man of peace clearly deserves to sing at a Nobel Peace Prize concert! I await the Pol Pot/Osama Bin Laden extravaganza '07. I hear that party will be a real...blast!

Moroccan wins Holocaust cartoon contest

This should particularly interest Shlemazl. From Jpost (via Jihadwatch)

Abdollah Derkaoui received US$12,000 for his work depicting an Israeli crane piling large cement blocks on Israel's security wall and gradually obscuring Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. A picture of Nazi Germany's Auschwitz concentration camp appears on the wall.

Here is one of the tamer entries that were submitted:

There has not been mass rioting or pillaging in response to these cartoons. In fact, the response has been to laugh it off and create an Israeli antisemitic cartoon contest! (see: Boomka)

Let's compare the responses to the two cartoons: Muslims riot, pillage, and murder when anyone dare mock Mohammed or question his piety. (something which, incidentally is a real question worth exploring) Jews laugh off the Holocaust cartoon contest and in fact ONE UP the Iranians with a funnier contest of their own!

A people who are strong enough to withstand mockery without resorting to murder (and in fact laugh it off) is a proud and fine one. This is one of millions of reasons why I am so proud to be Jewish.

The Druze in the IDF

One subject that gets consistently ignored is the topic of the Druze in Israel. This is especially significant in light of a victory of the Druze Herev Batillion during the recent war in Lebanon. Twenty Hizballah fighters were killed, and no Druze were killed. (source) In fact, other than (obviously) the Jews, only the Druze (an ethnicity that rhymes with the Jews!) have compulsory military service in Israel. NOTE: The Druze REQUESTED this in 1956. The following article goes through the history of the Druze in Israel, and advocates two proposals:

1) The disagreement between opponents and supporters of compulsory military service will continue to occasionally arise. We must honor the freedom of speech and thought of those who hold opinions we oppose. However, in order to conclude the disagreement, we do not need conferences in foreign capitals. We should hold a referendum among the Druze population in Israel. If the number of opponents of compulsory service is greater that the number of supporters, then we need to begin to think about its cancellation. And if the opposite is true, we need to end the disagreement and the minority should accept the will of the majority. This is the way that a democratic, pluralistic, and liberal society should act. 2) The Druze in the state lack resources. They do not have capital or media. Their percentage in the overall population is small and thus their electoral influence is practically not felt. In addition, the one or two Druze Knesset members are not necessarily Druze representatives but rather representatives of a certain political party. Often they are not devoted to Druze concerns but rather to their own, and the Druze are left without representation. Therefore, the government of Israel as well as the relevant institutions should initiate projects among the Druze for the advancement of academic education, society, infrastructure, industry, and the like, within the framework of affirmative action, for a period of ten years. Such a policy is necessary in order to develop the Druze villages and the young Druze leadership who will bear the burden of the Druze community and the nation. Of course this would include employment of Druze in key positions throughout public service, since the Druze have expertise not only in matters of security and the army. On the other hand, Jewish organizations, especially in the United States and in the Western world, should adopt the Druze community in Israel. The diaspora Jewish agenda should include all Israeli citizens in their annual agenda, and especially those who give their blood for their state and who contribute to the stability of relations between the Arab minority and the Jewish majority in Israel. In this way, the obligation is not just on the government of Israel but also on world Jewry. The government of Israel and diaspora Jewry are requested to reward the Druze for their contribution and to initiate an improvement in their situation and standing. Whoever serves in the security services and fulfills his military obligations should receive full rights and rewards, especially if he is numbered among the minorities within the state.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I support the Druze and see them as a discriminated against minority who do unfortunately face de facto (not de jure) discrimination in Israel. (that said, life in Israel is a billion times better for them than in Lebanon or Syria) More should be done to reach out to the Druze community. I hope this is done in the future.

The Muslims and the Jews

Recently a user named WMDee left a long comment about the nature of Islam; attempting to attack Judaism at it's core using scripture. The comment was left somewhere that had absolutely nothing about theology; it was spam. (This seems to be a bit of a habit for this user.) Included in this spam message the user equated Radical Islamic Fascists to all Muslims by saying: "READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR / ISLAM" This person is an Islamic fascist him/herself - he/she is claimg that fighting Islamic Fascists is fighting Islam, and therefore Islamic Fascists represent true Islam. I will make an assumption here; if you or I were to make such claims about Islam - they would not be recieved well. I would be called a racist or "Islamophobe" if I even suggested that the genocidal terrorists represented true Islam. Fear of a being called an Islamophobe is not what prevents me from making this claim; it is hope and the knowledge that some Muslims are at fighting radical Islam just as much as I am. WMDee called Islam "the future religion of mankind" and then went on to list some websites from Islamicity.com to Islamicweb.com. At this point he/she then went past the boundries of theology and started to attack Israel claiming an "Israeli Holocaust" and "War Crimes". There are 12 links in total which are not related to the theology. Note to Ismic Fascist Terrorist Supporing WMDee: Focus! I have cleaned up WMDee's comment by putting his/her text in the order it appers in the Bible. I have ignored the political links on Israel and I am not going to comment on the reproduced verses from the Koran or the Hadith. FYI, WMDee's references to Islamic scripture were: Quran 37:101-122 and Hadith Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583 (Narrated Ibn Abbas) Here is WMDee's argument:

The covenant with Abraham and his descendants is central to Judaism/Christianity and Islam. The following passages from the Bible challenge the claim that God gave Israel the land (If the child is an infant, Islam is correct): Genisis 16:16 "And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish'mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish'mael to Abram." Genesis 21:5 "Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him." [ This guy then went on to find out Ishmael's age. -ed] 100 years old – 86 years old = 14 Add 3 years for Issac's weaning. That would make Ishmael 17 years old in Genesis 21:14-21 [ Read the reference here. -ed] But it is a description of an infant: Does Genesis 21:14 - 21 refer to a 17 year old child, or an infant? If it is in reference to a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 year old) child? Genesis 21:14 - 21 "So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 year old) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 year old) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, "Let me not look upon the death of the (17 year old) child." And as she sat over against him, the (17 year old) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 year old) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 year old) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 year old) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation." Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 year old) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 year old) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt. The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 then the Judeo/Christian point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions. As the description of Ishmael in Genesis 21:14-21 is that of an infant it can be assumed that someone has moved this passage from an earlier part of the scripture and have got their knickers in a twist. At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!! [ My translation of Genesis 22:2 is: "And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'" A Christian site also translates Genesis 22:2 as: "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." -ed] Please can you rationally explain this anomaly? I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.

---

I am not well enough versed on this issue, so I have asked Sha'i ben-Tekoa if he could help answer the question. This is his response:

The history of Christianity and Islam is a history of people reading the Torah in translations, taking things out of context, and then using their faulty, out-of-context translations to bash the Torah. Back up to verses 21:9-12. Read them and then tell me that that description of Ishmael is of an infant. The Hebrew word being used in the passages you cite does NOT refer to an infant. It can be translated as "boy." Likewise, in 21:12, G-d refers to Ishmael as a na'ar, which is commonly translated "youth." It is the word later used to describe Yitzhak during the Binding. And the Sages tell us that at that time, Yitzhak the na'ar was 37 years old! And as for the Hebrew particle eth in verse 21:14 (which is untranslatable most of the time when acting as a grammatical signpost pointing to the direct object of the verb) can also mean, as it does here, "with" as in "go along with." It does NOT mean Abraham placed both the waterskin and a baby on her shoulder. What? She had such huge shoulders? He means he placed the waterskin on her shoulder, "and with the boy" was sent away. Indeed: At the time of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, he is either 16 or 17 (depending on the age of Yitzhak at the time of this weaning celebration. Some Sages say it was common to wean a child at age 2, others at age 3.) And as for 22:2, the expression "your only son" (which is repeated a second time in this story of the Binding of Isaac, 22:12) confirms the sense of 21:11-12, viz: Sarah sees at the weaning party the teenage son of her serving girl - who before he is even born (16:12) is destined to be a "wild ass on a man" - mocking his 2 (or 3)-year-old half-brother. And Sarah, in her prophetic insight, sees the possibility that this wild teenager - whom she has watched grow up - would not hestitate to harm, even kill her son at some point in order to inherit the legacy of Abraham. So she says to her husband, "Drive out this slavewoman with her son.." etc. Abraham is stressed (21:11) by this. He loves his son, his first-born, and does not want to do this. But G-d says to him, more or less, "Listen to your wife. In these matters she knows better than you." Indeed, throughout the Torah, there is simultaneously an acknowledgement of the special relationship between a father and his first-born son (there is even a special name for the first-born, bechor) who gets twice the material legacy of other sons, but also a repeating pattern of the second son becoming the spiritual heir. So it was with Shem, not Japhet, who inherited the spirit of Noah; and so it was with Jacob over Esau, when Rivka, like Sarah before her, makes sure the right, that is the second son gets the important blessing from blind Yitzhak. And see how Jacob in his own blind old age, on his death bed in Egypt (Gen: 48:10-20), overrides the wishes of his beloved son Joseph who wants his first-born son Menashe to receive the great blessing. At that point, Jacob switches the boys' positions and chooses Efraim. Steve, with your questions, you are at ground zero in the relationship between Israelites and Ishmaelites, Arabs and Jews to this very day. The Arabs have never reconciled themselves to the Torah's true version of Ishmael being rejected by his father and losing his birthright. The very word Islam means "submisssion" and points to the Muslim core belief that Ibrahim "submitted" to Allah's command that he bind his son - Ishmael - for a sacrifice in Mecca. Islam, as a name points to this crucial moment in world history when Avraham bound his son and lies about it. And for 14 centuries now, whenever Muslims are asked to explain the discrepancy between the Torah and the Qu'ranic versions of this epsiode, they answer that the Jews are the liars; that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai the correct version, found in the Qu'ran, which the perfidious Jews later re-wrote. In a word, they accuse the Jews of their own crime. What Islam did was to steal the Torah narrative and re-write it, changing the dramatis pesonae and the locale of this pivotal episode. Judaism teaches that the Binding of Isaac took place on the site of the future Temple in Jerusalem. Muslims say no, the binding of Ishmael took place at the Kaaba in Mecca. They also say Hagar was not the serving girl of Sarah but a co-equal wife. Indeed, the Qu'ran contains dozens of Jewish characters from the Bible whose stories are plagiarized and re-written. Likewise, the Arabs in our age have stolen the story of Zionism and re-written history. Major components of Judaism and Zionism have simply been pilfered to create the "Palestinian Narrative" which turned the great saga of Jewish revival from the ashes into an ugly tale of racist imperialism. The Arabs stole the idea of Jewish victimhood at the hands of racist bigots: in the Palestinian Narrative, it is the putatively Paleolithic Palestinians who are the victims of racist, Zionist, bigoted Jews. They stole the concept of our exile, of the Jews being driven from our ancient homeland into Diaspora. They speak of the Palestinian Diaspora. They stole the chapter of our suffering in concentration camps and have kept the so-called "refugee camps" alive to this very day to prove that they too have suffered in camps - with Nazi-like, racist Zionist now in the role of villains. The idea that the Palestinians are an ancient nation and Palestine their ancient homeland is nothing but Zionism purloined - as surely as Islam itself is Judaism purloined in a way even worse than what Christianity did to Judaism. Yours, Sha'i ben-Tekoa

Now: Discuss! :) Update: I have possibly found the identy of our spammer as there is a public user profile using the same name elsewhere on the net. See screenshot.