Responding to someone who thinks Islam is evil at its core.

To Tex (the person who said Islam is inherently evil)...

Sorry, but I know from experience that at best your approach is counterproductive. Those like Sudanese Thinker who believe in humanity will be on the defensive when they are told their religion is evil to the core.

As a practicing Jew, I can say that Judaism does NOT say Islam is evil to the core.

I have severe problems with Islam, most notably its notion that Muhammad was a "perfect man." This is extremely problematic, given he was a war general and married a nine year old. Also, Judaism explicitly denies the existence of "perfection" in humanity itself is not a Jewish idea. Moses himself was not perfect.

With that said - identifying what I see as critical problems in Islam - that does not mean Islam is warring at its core. There are verses from the Old Testemant that I could quote from which would lead some to think Judaism and Christianity are warring or evil at its core. But those verses are understood in the light of several millenia of interpretation, and are not seen as excuses for barbarism. In short, that is also possible for Islam. Except imams have decided to go with the opposite: taking the most warring/barbaric interpretation of the Koran/Hadith and spouting THAT as essential Islam.

This is what we must fight against. Making broad pronouncements of the "evil" of Islam accomplishes nothing.

And to contrast this, the approach of LGF Watch is also dangerous and bigoted. LGF Watch has decided that stating that Islamic suicide bombers are subhuman is itself an example of "Islamophobia," thus implying Islam = suicide bombing. It is wrong and it is offensive. They also go about libeling those who are fighting for humanity, such as Charles Johnson, thinking this "helps" Muslims.

It does not.

People like Sphinx are also a critical part of the problem. They love to blame the West, blame America, but hate to engage in the sort of introspection and self criticism that in fact fuels the statements that Tex make. Instead of wondering "Hey, gee, why do people like Tex hate Islam? Maybe it is because there are millions and millions of Muslims out there who give Islam a bad name?!"...instead of that...they say there is no problem in Islam, and anyone who says so are "Islamophobic."

And LGF Watch, which pretends to care about "humanity" only furthers attitudes of people like Tex, by giving "Sphinx" and the opinions of "Sphinx" a platform!

Meanwhile, when there is a rocket attack in Sderot, it's irrelevant to LGF Watch. When people die of suicide bombing - including Muslims who die - it is the West who is to blame.

This is a suicidal and anti-humanity position to take. Shame on LGF Watch.

Muslimophobia!

Ladies and gentlemen, I have encountered truly disturbing Muslimophobia. It rankles the core of my being and shakes my insides. This Muslimophobia is at the hands of LGF Watch!

What did they do? There is a post on there that claims that Charles Johnson, the man behind Little Green Footballs, stated that Arabs/Muslims are "subhuman" through the the "subtext" of posts which explicitly say that Islamic terrorists are subhuman. This is my response to the shocking hatred of LGF Watch.

You claim there is "subtext" that Charles is saying all Muslims are subhuman, and yet the only context in which Charles uses the word "subhuman" refers to terrorists. Such a statement produces no subtext whatsoever, so you are LIBELLING Charles Johnson.

The alternative is that, in your minds, all Muslims are terrorists.

That means you are disgusting racists and Muslimophobes.

And I am deeply offended that you dare speak of such hate.

Indeed, I think that Culture for All should run a campaign decrying the rabid Muslimophobia of LGF Watch. We cannot let this hate continue!

UPDATE:

"MJ" replied to me with a nonsensical ramble, and I replied as such...

Claiming there is a "subtext of hate" or a "context of hate" is the most dishonest thing one can do. I can conjure up a "context" of anything!

Yet the 'proof' used for this alleged 'context' is that Charles called TERRORISTS subhuman!! Talk about nonsensical!

The implication is obvious. Calling terrorists subhuman - in your book - provides a 'context' for saying all Muslims are subhuman. This really might be the most ludicrous non-reasoning LGF Watch has ever been graced with posting. (that says something)

The only way one can come to such a conclusion is if you are libelling Charles Johnson from the start (and hence were using those the posts where Charles calls terrorists subhuman as only a pretext for libel), OR, if you honestly believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and hence claiming terrorists are subhuman says all Muslims are subhuman.

So in either case you are defamers or racists.

Retract this post and apologize, or defamers and racists you shall forever be known as.

Person to read

Hey all,

I just thought I would give a shout out to someone who is worthy of a read: Tarek Heggy. This is an Egyptian intellectual who appears to actually believe in peace. Tell me what you think!

Cheers,

RT

So much to say, so much to say!

I have been terrible about updating this blog, I know!

Anyway, I have so many things that have happened in my life since I last updated, too many to count, really. These are things that C4A readers would find of interest, and I have been lax in updating...

To sum it up...

1. I went to a conference, organized by CAMERA, exploring Jewish antisemitism in the media. By that I mean Jewish sources which are explicitly anti-Israel, to the extreme of telling utter lies. How do you combat such lies, when a Jewish source is telling them? I took copious notes for no real reason, since I have no idea where I put the notes. One complaint I have about the conference is that they did not serve adequate food over the time period of the conference. All there were were muffins and cookies, over a whole day! But definitely it was memorable.
2. I went to another conference, organized by Eye on the UN, which explored the antisemitism of the UN. I saw Pamela from Atlas Shrugs from afar, and never spoke to her in person. (I was thinking how she supports Vlaams Belang) There were AMAZING speakers at this conference, including John Bolton and Senator Norm Coleman. But most importantly of all, there was Nonie Darwish. She gave a very impassioned speech about the plight of Muslim women in the Islamic world. She is doing amazing things. As far as the UN goes...there is a permanent majority of antisemitic nations, which are out to do Israel in. It's a sad tale. It's one we all know. The saddest part is that an international agency like the UN could do real good...but it has been totally delegitimized.
3. I heard Alan Dershowitz talk...twice. Let me say...he is excellent when he is attacking Israel's attackers. He was infuriating when he decribed Israel as "occupying" the West Bank, and the "human rights dilemma" of home demolitions. He is good friends with Shimon Peres, so what do you expect? I heard him say that Israel should abide by the Barack plan, or something close to it, because otherwise Israel will be an "occupying" power. It was very difficult to listen to. Mr. Dershowitz, please stick to what you are good at: debating Noam Chomsky and others! The sad thing is that because he is seen as "pro-Israel," he is considered a right wing nutcase. Truly sad state of affairs.
4. I heard the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN speak, at Columbia. Yes, that very Columbia, where Ahmadinejad spoke. Disgusting to set foot on those grounds, but I did anyway. The ambassador basically said that there is progress in Iraq, but it is not covered by the media. He said that the nation is 4 years old, and it takes time to really build a country out of scratch. With that said, he pointed to the oil sharing deals as proof of Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconsiliation, as well as the big turnout for voting. He spoke of how 25% of the Parliamentarians are women - as said in the constitution. He has a point - that is major. And he said that the US should not leave Iraq right now, until the nation is stable. It should be noted that there was a Columbia student who was upset with the ambassador...for being too pro-American!
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I went on the tour of Europe that I said I would. I traveled to six countries in ten days! I traveled to England, Germany, Switzerland, France, Poland, and Czech Republic. I have no idea how I had the gumption, and the energy, to do so much traveling. It should be noted that this was a C4A trip, as I went with fellow posters PM and Steven. I am so excited to have met these amazing people, and I consider them friends for life, truly. Words cannot even adequately sum up the trip, which was a trip of a lifetime. I saw Auschwitz, I saw a Jewish museum in Basel, Switzerland - home of the First Zionist Congress, and I had amazing conversations. I feel renewed and reinvigorated in my activities.

And so, with that all said...summing up my life as best as I could...I shall bid you adieu, for now.

Rather Sad Terry Pratchett News (He's not dead)

He has announced that he is suffering from a rare form of early onset Alzheimer's.

Folks,

I would have liked to keep this one quiet for a little while, but because of upcoming conventions and of course the need to keep my publishers informed, it seems to me unfair to withhold the news. I have been diagnosed with a very rare form of early onset Alzheimer's, which lay behind this year's phantom "stroke".

Rest of statement.

He is one of my favourite authors, so this has come as a bit of a shock, but at least Terry Pratchett himself intends to carry on writing while he still can.

"Certain things have to happen before other things. Gods play games with the fates of men. But first they have to get all the pieces on the board, and look all over the place for the dice."

An extract from Soul Music by Terry Pratchett.

Quiz Time

This fan club belongs to which celebrities.

1. Britney
2. Asha Bhosley
3. Katey Sagal
4. None of the above

When it comes to celebrities, dancing can't be neglected. In which city center do you think this Islamic dance is taking place.

1. London
2. Paris
3. Shanghai
4. None of the above

Where do you think, this weekly carbecue session had taken place this week?

1. Paris
2. Gaza
3. Kashmir
4. None of the above

Which place is it?

1. Kashmir
2. Gaza
3. London
4. None of the above

Ending with the classic picture, that fits everywhere for religion of Peace. Waiting for the caption.

All above photos were taken during last week kolkata celebration launched by "Indian (tiny and moderate) minority" for celebrating the spirit of taslima nasreen.

Andy Thomson Lecture

Interesting thus far.

• Part two
• Part three
• Article source.
• Richard Dawkins website.

One Text for Burma

Freedom for Burma

Name: (required)

Email:

Country:

Radiohead Drops it's Stinkbomb on the Music Biz

"Because in our dreams, it would be really nice to just let off this enormous stink bomb in the industry."

The new Radiohead album is being released next Monday. (It's called in rainbows).

The catch?

It's being released online only, and you decide how much you want to pay for it (plus a credit card handling fee). Or you can pre-order a disc-box set, which Radiohead are selling for £40 - about $80 (ships worldwide).

If this has any effect on the current models for selling music online, time will only tell.

And for those of you who don't want to go the online route, Radiohead are in talks with record labels (including EMI, Radiohead's old label) about releasing the album in the shops in 2008.

• NME article
• BBC News Online Article.
• Radiohead.com

*Radiohead's site may take a while to load.

Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

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.

More on The Roots of Jewish Self Hatred

I have thought more about Jewish self hatred, and I feel that this sums up the roots of this problem best.

---

I started to read The Jewish State by Yoram Hazony, and I feel it misses most of the point of where the problem of "post-zionism" and Jewish self hatred stems from. I believe that the essence of the problem can be summed up by the way the Islamists describe Israel as little Satan.

Jewish self hatred is not limited to the Jews; Western self hate is at an all time high, and I hope to visit Eurodhimmiland this winter just to see the Louvre and large parts of Paris prior to it being taken over by Islamists. What does Western self-hate and Jewish Israeli self-hate have in common? Answer: they both derive from a hatred of capitalism and the American way.

Israel was formed upon a "Labour-Zionist" ideal, and I view this, i.e., its socialist roots, as the core of the problem. Every year that Israel moves away from these socialist roots, it has a greater and greater chance of success against its internal and external enemies.

Socialism is a form of nihilism, and it is directly inapposite to an idea of Judaism. True socialism cannot succeed as long as Jews remain Jewish. The USSR knew this, witness their extensive antisemitism. Karl Marx knew this, see On the Jewish Question.

And so Israel did perform genuine bad things against its religious populations early on in its statehood. I would argue this is the result of the nihilistic orientation of its Founders. The way the Mizrahi, for instance, were treated by the 'liberal' socialist Zionist elite is deplorable.

But this all is the result of an anti-Jewish attitude exhibited by the founders of Israel. This anti-Jewish attitude stems from socialism, which is also anti-Christian and anti-nationalistic. To the extent that the West has been gripped by suicidal tenancies, this is why. (NOTE: the founders were pro-Jewish ethnicity, but antagonistic towards the Jewish religion. Ben Gurion himself was an atheist.)

Israel's self hate did not materialize out of thin blue air. The self hatred in Israel is minimal in comparison to what is in Eurodhimmiland and the US, aka, "Big Satan," from whence the self-hating philosophy has its roots. This self hatred is even evident in India, whereby the communist parties seek total abdication of India's might to the Islamists. (Remember that communists and Islamists are aligned.)

The future of Israel and the West rests with the rejection of nihilism and the embrace of an alternative, non-suicidal philosophy. Judaism is one such alternative, but is by no means the only one.

The ROOT of Jewish self hate

Carl in Jerusalem recently discussed the security fence in Israel, showing how in fact it is anti-security by its very nature. A commentator, Daniel, replied to this post basically saying how sick he was of liberal Jewry and their self loathing, placing the blame for Israel and the Jewish nation's cultural malaise on Reform/Conservative Judaism and a lack of Jewish pride. He stated that Jews did much during the Civil Rights movement for black people, but little to save Jews during the Holocaust. I wrote a response, and I think it is worth reading.

Daniel,

With all due respect, you have mischaracterized reform and conservative Judaism.

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

Now, as far as your argument about the Nazis; I have read about Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish community during WWII. Yes, there is more they could have done, in my opinion. But this all misses the broader problems in the world.

I believe that the problems Jews face are of more pressing significance than most ethnic/religious groups throughout the world. And so kapos and self hatred have a more immediate and disastrous effect on the Jewish nation than it does or would on most others. But self hatred is not limited to the Jews, and treason is not limited to the Jews.

Just look at Eurodhimmiland. It is a cesspool of self hate on a scale that I believe even outstrips Israel. Every opportunity is taken to bash the Judeo-christian Euro heritage. Even in the US, moveon.org had the gaul to call General Petreaus a traitor for simply saying the US is making progress in Iraq...and this ad was not condemned by a single Democratic candidate for president. Not one. Why is this?

I would argue the root of the self hatred is in communism, and in fact the free world only just barely won the Cold War; academia and the social elite of Eurodhimmiland and the US are littered with communists and socialists. And I view this, not Jewish self hatred as the root of the problem.

In short, I see Israel's problems as very related to its socialist roots. The further it gets from these socialist roots, the more it will have to grasp some alternative ideology. We cannot forget that socialism/communism is an antisemitic philosophy at its core. Karl Marx was not a Jew (his parents converted to Christianity and raised him non-Jewish), and he wrote the antisemitic paper, On the Jewish Question. There is a reason why the USSR was so hostile to Jews, and why communist nations around the world are so virulently hostile to Jews. Once you read On the Jewish Question, perhaps you will have a better understanding as to what I am talking about.

To sum this all up...to the extent that Jews might suffer particularly from self hate and self destructiveness, as opposed to Eurodhimmiland and the like, it is because of the large numbers of Jewish communists. The Jewish communists are not the recent immigrants from the former USSR, as most of those saw the destructiveness of communism and are now ardently anti-communist. No, the communists mostly are Red diaper babies whose parents and grandparents left the USSR and Eastern European and European states when communism was en vogue. Most of these Red diaper babies are assimilating, anyway. Witness the Adam Shapiro story. And thus, within the next few generations, I predict that the Jewish nation will only improve, if nothing else due to demographics of who is reproducing.

Daniel replied with the following:

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

I wish you were correct. I wish c&r's were becoming more observant, having large numbers of Jewish kids, visited Israel at a higher rate than xtians, and didn't intermarry. Yes, the local federation rags often profile a temple that added a few lines of hebrew. but this is like the MSM in the 70's profiling the successful black woman that was once on welfare.

The facts speak for themselves. r%c have intermarriga rates approaching 75% in some locales. 2007 National Survey of American Jews demonstrated how with each generation the non orthos have little concern for Israel and Judaism.

We can pretend that r& c are strongly committed , but for the vast majority are places for going twice a year and for treif bnai mitzvas.

Conservative "believes" in halacha, and you can probably find a minyan of shomer mitzva conservative jews, but I'd bet my left foot that less tah 1% of C's practice family purity and only5% would even know that they are supposed to.

100 years from know when historians write the history of American Jewry-at least of the wave that came at the beginning of the 20TH century- will be "they came , they prosperred , they intermarried, they ignored TWO HOLOCAUSTS, and they disappeared."

Nothing to be proud of.

p.s. notice that I intentionally excluded the refugees from hitler and stalin- They are the Maccabees of America

This brought the following reply by me:

Daniel:

I have to reiterate how you have the wrong perspective.

If the choice were between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, you would have a point, and maybe I would agree with you. That is not the choice.

The choice of most Jews would be between Reform Judaism and nothing, or even converting out of Judaism. So the correct comparison that should be made is not between Reform/Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jewry. The correct comparison should be between Reform/Conservative and nothing/atheism.

Given those are the choices, (and I can say for the most part, that is the reality) the real question should be whether Reform/Conservative Judaism is better than nothing at all. And the answer to that question, in my mind, is a clear yes.

There are real benefits offered in Reform/Conservative shuls. Firstly, technically speaking, Conservative shuls believe in Halacha, however, the synagogues are integrated by gender, and most of the congregants do not follow Halacha in their daily lives. How is it a negative if Jews in that category are exposed to what is authetic Judaism when they go to shul, which they otherwise would not do?

Then there are Reform congregations, which do not follow Halacha and do not necessarily believe in Halacha. I would argue that the validity of these synagogues is on a case by case basis. Some are basically churches with a few Hebrew words uttered; I see little value in that and no point in holding on to Judaism if that is all that is left. Other synagogues offer much more.

Your analysis is very black and white, whereas the world of Reform/Conservative Judaism is anything but that.

Finally, you have not addressed the rest of what I said, which I believe to be the bottom line basis for the self hate. I do not see this as a particularly theological Jewish struggle, except to the extent that Judaism is and can be used as an alternative to the destructiveness of communist self hate. I have atheist Jewish friends who are the biggest Zionists around. They identify with capitalism and secular humanism, and even vote for the religious parties in Israel, as they are also capitalist and anti-communist.

The root of the self hate in Israel is the same root found in Eurodhimmiland, the US, and the rest of the West. It is communism, which we know is linked with Islamofascism. It is that root which must be expunged, not Reform and Conservative Judaism.

P.S.: I never said that Reform or Conservative Jews are as committed as Orthodox Jews, because they are not. However, most congregations are much more committed to Israel and the Jewish nation than the general population of the US or Eurodhimmiland. Moreover, if any kid of a secular Jew is to make teshuva, they would come from the Reform/Conservative pool, NOT the pool of kids with atheist parents.

In summation: the logical and constructive path to take is to encourage and support Orthodox Jewry, while not denigrating Reform/Conservative congregations unless they fail to support the Jewish nation. (such as in Lerner's case) For every Lerner synagogue, there are 20 Zionist congregations that might not be as ardent as Orthodox congregations, but are definitely not anti-zionist. (and that said, the Satmar are Orthodox and anti-Zionist)

So what should be done? Work with the Reform/Conservative shuls. Have Zionist speakers come and educate the members of these shuls, and get out the facts, which are on our side. Hope is not lost, and the vast majority of Reform/Conservative synagogues are not the enemy.

Thoughts?

Brown just keeps on swining those punches

Yesterday he invited Thatcher to Number 10.

Election warfare methinks. David Cameron has gambled on the Blair way of doing things, and i think he's lost. Saatchi is in charge of Labours election advertising. Which is ironic really, considering the fact that Saatchi's advertising helped Thatcher gain power in 1979 with the "labour isn't working" being one that sticks in older peoples memories (i was but a twinkle in my fathers eye in 1979). The first advert for Labour is quite simple, it has a picture of Brown with the words "Just Gordon". I think people are sick of the Blair style of politics (which Cameron has been trying to emulate), so the simple appeal of Brown as a politician of old (boring bank manager type) may just win Labour the election.

I'm voting for my local MP, as he has done a very good job over the years (he got my first ever vote in a general election). Hopefully i will not have to run the gauntlet of Tatchell's supporters. Because when i vote, i head in and out as quickly as i can. Without making eye contact with Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour party workers. Who are always trying to drum up extra votes. I vote, then watch the election night news programmes as they try and number crunch the results into predicated a Parliament, which they revise constantly over night with the swingometer.

As for when the Election will be called ? If it's not called before November, then i guess Brown will call it sometime before the spring in 2008. I think Labour might get a slight increase on it's majority. As David Cameron has failed to use the chances to run down the Labour Government over things like the NHS and other issues that have cropped. Team Cameron is more like Team Tory: Opposition forever!

• BBC Article 1
• BBC Article 2

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
3. anti-Iraq war
4. Darfur Genocide awareness
5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.
   
   This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.
   
   One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.
   
   Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.
   
   They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

'Masked' the play

Last night, I saw something that had me very deeply disturbed. I saw a play called 'Masked,' about three Palestinian brothers. This was written by Ami Dayan, Moshe Dayan's nephew. One of the brothers is a suspected 'collaborator' with Israel, one is an Arafish stooge, and one is young and impressionable - the question is where he will go in the future. The play ignored several key parts to the 'Palestinian' question, namely, Islam and jihad. The word 'jihad' was not mentioned once. Moreover, the suffering of the Israelis at the hands of these 'Palestinians' was not mentioned at all. I also saw the choice of the 'collaborater' brother as a false one. Given how leftist Barak basically left a number of the Southern Lebanese army to die after the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000...why would ANYONE want to risk their life to be a 'collaborator' if they get little to nothing in return?

But anyway, that was only half of my criticism. The brunt was aimed at one of the members of the panel discussion after the play, Elik Elhanan. He said that he lost his sister, and he blamed the death of his sister on the 'cycle of violence' caused by 'the occupation.'

I raised my hand and said "With all due respect, Mr. Elhanan, but there is no cycle of violence. Arafat was offered all that Israel could be willing to give in 2000, and he answered that with the Intifada."

In response, Elhanan said "Oh, but you don't know what was offered, have you seen maps?"

I said "Yes, I have. Dennis Ross wrote a book about this."

Then he incredibly said that you cannot trust Dennis Ross! Abram Epstein, an old and tired leftist Jew also on the panel, responded that his 'Palestinian' friends would say this was all about East Jerusalem. I responded "With all due respect, this was not about East Jerusalem. This was about the 'right of return,' which everyone knows is a ploy to destroy Israel. And moreover, when Israel does not return fire, they get MORE fire, not less. There is absolutely no cycle of violence."

Then some other audience members had a few other comments to make, and Epstein had the gaul to say that Hamas does not have to recognize Israel, as that would be like having the Native Americans recognize America. The most we could expect is they will renounce violence. I responded (shouting out in the audience), "Oh, you mean a hudna." He got very angry at that suggestion, and said "No, I mean long term peace." I laughed at him when he said that. It should be noted that Native Americans recognize America, and certainly have no terror campaign as the 'Palestinians' do.

Finally, it was down to closing comments. Blah, blah, blah. Then down to Elhanan. My friend sitting next to me whispered "Watch him say occupation!" Next thing you know, Elhanan, in his sinister way, said "Really, this is all about the occupation. My sister died due to the occupation. Little children on all sides have died due to the occupation. The occupation is the cause of all the troubles, and drives the 'Palestinians' to commit their terror!" (talk about soft bigotry of low expectations!) My friend and I laughed out loud, right in front of him, as he uttered such tripe.

What a travesty. Little old ladies thanked me afterwards, for stating FACTS in the midst of Jewish self hating LIES. It was disgusting to see such lies propagated to an audience who maybe does not know so much about the conflict, and now might buy into the garbage. Very sinister.

I would like to add that Elhanan stated that he and his cronies, 'Combatants for Peace,' go into 'Palestinian' areas and 'protect' the 'Palestinians' from Israeli bulldozers and IDF action. This is Rachel Corrie-esque. I hence view Elhanan, who organizes far leftist soldiers to not fight in the 'territories,' and 'protects' the 'Palestinians' from IDF action to be a traitor to Israel and the Jewish nation. I wanted to spit at him, I was so furious to see him. He should honestly be tried and convicted of treason, for the activities he has done.

What makes it the most tragic is that he lost his sister, killed by 'Palestinians.' Instead of blaming the right source, he and his family blamed ISRAEL! They blamed the victim! I sort of understand this mentality, as it is twofold. On the one hand, he must think that if people hate Jews so much, they have to have a reason! Many Jews turned to self hatred from this respect, during and after the Holocaust. On the other hand, it is much easier (and safer) to rail against Israel than it is to rail against the corrupt Jew-hating thugs which make up the 'Palestinian' leadership and media (indoctrinating all 'Palestinians' to hate) It gives him hope to rail against Israel, as Israel is a democracy, and responsive to his hate. In contradistinction, the 'Palestinians' would not stop their butchery of Israeli civilians due to Elhanan's action or inaction.

So sad. There was a British man on the panel, Glemore Trenear-Harvey, and as soon as I heard his British accent, I figured he would be a dhimmi. (due to recent British politics) While he most certainly was misguided, he actually was less misguided than the Jews on the panel!

If that does not sum up what is wrong with modern leftist Jews in a nutshell, what does?

UPDATE:

Carl in Jerusalem supplied information about Elhanan's mother. Evidently she was a speaker at a UN-sponsored conference of hate against Israel. With parents such as those, it is no wonder he came out as he did.

At last! The British decided to fight for their Christian roots...

After removing Churchill from its educational books, and quiting British Council offices in Europe, Banning crosses in British Airways, Saying No to "War on Terror", and tagging everyone condemning Islamic Ideology as Islamophobe!... the British had finally decided to defend its Christian roots.

Hold on a second, If you are dreaming that they had started to speak against Jihad, or Islamic Imperial goals of Global caliphet, then you are absolutely wrong. Instead of fighting the real enemy, They had moved further to ban Infidel Activities like Yoga.

More in the world of Indian Muslims

I wrote earlier of Taslima Nasreen, the ex-Muslim feminist (soon to be wife of PM ;-)), who faces an indictment in India for 'insulting Islam.' I also wrote of the violence against her in Hyderabad. Now it seems she has a 'fresh fatwa' against her life. She was given a month to leave Kolkhata, or she will be killed. This is how much the jihadis believe in freedom of speech.

And yet not all the news from India's Islamic community is bad. Witness a recent delegation of Indian imams to Israel, and what the leader had to say:

The time for violence has come to an end, and the era of peace and dialogue between Muslims and Jews has begun - that was the message delivered by Maulana Jameel Ahmed Ilyasi, secretary-general of the All-India Association of Imams and Mosques, during an interview with Ynetnews.

Ilaysi's organization represents half a million imams, who are the main religious leaders of India's 200 million Muslims.

In an extraordinary visit to Israel, organized by the American Jewish Committee's (AJC) India office, Ilaysi arrived as part of a delegation of Indian Muslim leaders and journalists.

Asked to address Hamas's call for jihad to destroy Israel, Ilaysi said, "I believe in peace and this is the message I take. I don't believe in anything that destroys another country."

The religious leader also said the time had come for Pakistan to establish official relations with Israel. "This is the right thing to do," he added.

These are honestly the words of peace, and I find them to be remarkable. I know PM thinks it is all bluster, but I have to disagree with him. The question, however, is whether this imam is long for the world, and how many Indian Muslims agree with him.

Perhaps Indian Muslims can lead the world as an example of what it truly means to show Islam can be a religion of peace?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

I had the following exchange with a friend of mine who is a Zionist. I figured you would appreciate what I had to say.

My friend wrote me the following:

just to reiterate, i'm for the settlers and soldiers to be evacuated, and for soldiers' ability to go after terrorists and other threats. i'm also for israel to keep early warning stations as they see fit. i'm just not for this whole matrix of control over a hostile population....it won't convince them to change their ways, so it's unsustainable and pointless if israel can find just as effective means of self-defense. how don't care how it's viewed by them, they won't be able to penetrate israel and that'll be the best message to send.

This was my reply:

I understand why you believe in evacuating most of the West Bank, but to briefly outline why I do not believe it to be a fruitful platform...

1. Technically speaking, the 'hostile population' already is under the control over the thugs of the Palestinian Authority. In fact, times were best for this hostile population when Israelis were in control in the '80s, pre-Oslo.
2. To that end, the IDF is in there not to 'control' the hostile population, but rather to secure the Israeli population AGAINST the hostile population. Yes, road blocks can be crap, but we know when they were put in - after the Intifada. They were not, repeat, NOT, there pre-Intifada. As such, we have to evalualate them not from whether or not it is hurting Israeli psyche to be 'in control' over a hostile population, but rather, whether they are effective. If you look at the extreme drop in suicide bombings, then yes, they have been effective to at least some degree. I would be in favor of dropping anything ineffective, but ONLY if it is ineffective.
3. It is a human rights nightmare to just evacuate tens of thousands (if not many more) of Jews from the holiest part of Israel. There is not the infrastructure nor the sympathy to care for what will be homeless people. The settlers evacuated from Gaza have been reduced to living in trailers, the kids still, two years later, are not enrolled in schools.
4. If we were to evacuate the West Bank, then it is a guarantee that our holiest sites will be 100% destroyed. I am not so cool with our history and heritage being destroyed. We need only examine the example of Gaza, and the wholesale destruction of the ancient synagogues there.
5. As far as my understanding, the missile defense system will not be effective if the missiles come lobbed RIGHT over the wall, and they are certainly still at a test phase in general. The technology is not as effective as rooting out the terrorists in the way the IDF currently does.
6. WHY should Jews have to evacuate Jewish holy land (which they were slaughtered in in 1929, as you know), and Arabs are allowed to live in Israel? Honestly, if THAT is the philosophy of the JEWISH state - population exchange ONLY for Jews - then that rewards bad behavior. Rewarding bad behavior encourages bad behavior. And it makes me believe that if there is to be a population exchange, let's make it even - let's tell all Arab Israelis they have to declare they are a Zionist (and that their kids must join IDF), or they will be given money to leave. I do not believe it right or just to have a one-way population exchange.
7. Was the IDF set up to forcibly expel Jews from their homes? Having the IDF do such a thing undermines confidence in the IDF. There already is a concern about draft dodging, and such policies will only increase draft dodging.
8. None of this will change the opinion of the world, nor the Palestinians, nor the Arab Israelis, about Israel. If anything, it will make them more vigilant, rather than less. They will see that their actions lead to a reward. As such, if the goal is to curb the impulse to commit acts of terror, that is not achieved.
9. If the goal is to be more militarily effective, I do not believe that would be achieved, either. Let's examine: why are there no rockets being launched through the West Bank, but there are rockets being launched from Gaza? Answer: because of the vigilance of the IDF in rooting out the Islamist terrorists in the West Bank. THAT is the reason. You take away the IDF presence, and there will be, almost as a guarantee, an upsurge of terrorism and rockets being launched at Israel. The missile defense system is still in the test phase and cannot be relied upon and is no substitute for what the IDF does now. Meanwhile, the West Bank sits right on top of MAJOR POPULATON CENTERS of Israel! Thus, leaving the West Bank in the way you propose would expose the population centers, and make them less, and not more safe. And this is under the pretense of assuming that the IDF had to forcibly expel tens of thousands of Jews from their homes - and there is NO Jewish presence in the West Bank (save for the few settlement blocks).
10. Let's examine another scenario. Let's pretend that there is a Jewish presence in the West Bank. Let's pretend that the IDF leaves, and the Jews are told that they can stay, but they will be under the auspices of the corrupt, thug-like Palestinian Authority. These settlers will be armed, as they are now, and will certainly act to defend themselves and their homes. It will be like the Wild West. And a tenet of the IDF is to protect Jews in the world, wherever they may be. (most famously seen in the bravery during the Entebbe hijacking) So the IDF still has jurisdiction over these Jews and still would have a duty to defend them - only they will not be able to be as effective in doing so, having ceded power and control over to the Palestinian Authority. There would be massacres.
11. The bottom line is that Israel has only two logical paths it can follow if it seeks to avoid a human rights nightmare for its Jewish citizens. One is to remain constantly vigilant. Remember what Wendell Phillips said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." When I was in Israel, every soldier I saw, I cheered. I told them that I was grateful for their protecting my freedom. What they do is really amazing. We mustn't, and they musn't, buy into the propoganda that they are doing it "only" for the "ungrateful" settlers. We musn't, and they musn't, buy into the propoganda that they are "controlling a hostile native population." (these people are no more native than the Jews, if anything, they are less native, but that is another story) We cannot let THEM dictate the terms over how we see this, and we have to realize that if we remain eternally vigilant, there may be no peace in our lifetimes. We have to resolve ourselves that the only way towards peace is to do something that no one is willing to do, because it may break the very soul of the Jewish state. And that is to follow Kahane's advice and have a wholesale population transfer. This is the only longterm solution towards peace. If we are not willing to do it, as we are not (and as we shouldn't be, because I think it would break the soul of the Jewish state), then we have to acknowledge that peace is not possible with a foe whose goal is ultimately annhilation. Maybe a sizeable chunk of Palestinians can live in peaceful coexistence. Maybe. But not today, and not in three-five years.

If we are not going to follow Kahane's advice (I want to underline the fact that I do not believe we SHOULD follow Kahane's advice), then we have to look at how to dismantle the hate education system which produces programs such as "Farfour, the Hamas mouse," and "Nahoul the bee," teaching children the joys of shahid, martyrdom. We have to dismantle the hate education system which teaches children that Jews are subhuman. And if that is taught in Israel, certainly that too should be dismantled. The problem is not the people, it is the culture. There needs to be a wholesale change of culture, so that peaceful coexistence is possible. That cannot happen in our lifetimes, and we should resolve ourselves to that; maybe it can happen in the lifetimes of our children.

What do you all think about what I have to say?

Hyderabad police lodge case against Taslima Nasreen

The following article details how Hyderabad police are lodging a complaint against Taslima Nasreen for 'hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims.' It should be recalled that she was the one who faced riots against her, and was personally beaten when she spoke in Hyderabad. Her personal safety was only assured after Hindu journalists formed a wall around the Muslim rioters, and allowed her to have a police escort out of the facility. She is a Bangladeshi ex-Muslim feminist who speaks out in favor of human rights, and for that was kicked out of Bangladesh. She is seeking refuge in India, and now it seems her country of refuge is making it quite difficult for her to live there.

You might wonder how this is all possible. The answer is that it is a crime to insult Muhammad in India. According to my understanding, it is also a crime to insult Krishna and Buddha, etc. Does anyone know how this law came about, and if there is an equality of enforcement of these blasphemy laws? As far as I see it, blasphemy should not be a crime, regardless of which religion is insulted, due to the far reaching free speech implications. But then again, I have grown to prize the First Amendment.

African dreams!

Please read the following JPost article...seems that Africa, Egypt excluded, is more pro-Israel than Europe!

The article posits that perhaps the reason for this is the lack of Israeli anti-zionist infiltration into Africa. Ilan Pappe has not taught in Kenya. I believe that Africans take to heart the fact that "black African" and "slave" are used interchangeably in Arabic. I believe they takethe Sudanese genocide at the hands of its Arab government to heart. I think this has an impact. I also know Africans are religious...Euros are not. Maybe that too has an impact.

Thoughts?

My hero!

It is very easy to be an armchair warrior. It is easy to protest from the safety of your home, to rant and rave online with fellow armchair warriors. It is hard to get in the trenches and do what is necessary to make a difference. To that extent, I have striven to be more than an armchair warrior; I am leading activities in the NYC area and I hope to actually make a difference. But what I have done is nothing. It is a drop in the bucket compared to Salah Choudhury, a "Muslim Zionist" journalist from Bangladesh who faces a possible death penalty for the "crime" of advocating for normalized relations with Israel. Please read what David Harris of AJC wrote about this courageous man.

Mr. Choudhury could have easily sought aslyum in the United States, during his week long reprieve he was granted by the Bangladeshi government. He could have sought personal safety. Instead, this man will travel back to Bangladesh and face trial, with his life on the line. Mr. Choudhury, a man I wrote about earlier, is seeking to empower the peace loving people of Bangladesh. And let me say this. With no exceptions, the Muslim Bangladeshis I have met have been kind, peace loving, and honestly moderate. None had a bad word to say about Israel. I actually lived in a building with two Bangladeshi Americans, and the only bad words they had to say were about Pakistan, and the way that Bangladeshis were treated like dirt by what was once their mother country.

And so I empathize with the Bangladeshi people, some of the poorest on earth, who are simply trying to find their way in this world, but have an authoritarian Islamist government backed by Saudi money that is preventing ordinary Bangladeshis from expressing their opinions and leading their lives as they see fit. And I fear for a new generation of Bangladeshis who, so impovershed, will be taught in Saudi-funded madrassas.

And so what does the US do in response to this crisis? It offers a $20 billion weapons deal to Saudi Arabia. What does Israel do in response to THAT? Olmert says, "No, America, give MORE!"

Knowing Choudhury's plight and how empowering the Saudis disempowers the moderate life-loving Bangladeshis, this puts the Saudi weapons deal in a whole new light. Not only is it a suicidally stupid move, it is a move which as a side-swipe also hurts the innocents around the world who are being victimized by those that the Saudis empower. It hurts the friends we have around the world, not just ourselves.

I would say Bush and Olmert should be ashamed of themselves, but at this point I do not believe Olmert has any shame left inside him.

Peace, Debate, and Dialogue

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?

Moderate Malaysia

I don't have any words for Sharia law system supported by majority of "Peaceful and Moderate Muslim's" around the Globe....

Anyways The Video is a bit disturbing and contents can be Mature for some viewers, and is taken from one of the most moderate Islamic state of Malaysia, which is seen as a perfect model in Western countries to represent Moderate Islamic states.....

Viewers discretion strongly advised.

Time for Something Amusing

Harry Potter report coming soon...