Monday, June 30, 2008

The Islamic Peril in Denmark

Muslims are destroying the cultural and economic fabric of Denmark society. But finally after years of embracing the very multiculturalism which is causing that destruction, the Danes are moving to the right and changing their immigration policies. Let's hope these measures are not too late to save Denmark from this scourge.

...How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets -all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:
Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending. Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.’

‘Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane. Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.’

‘Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.’

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. (Its effort to protect itself has been met with
accusations of ‘racism’ by liberal media acros Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years o too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. ‘We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,’ he said A large thorn in the side of Denmark’s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, ‘The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,’ Hvilsh├»¿½j says, ‘There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.’ And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, ‘In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.’

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce...

Round up the scourge and boot them the hell out. And to those who dare call this racist, tell them to go fuck themselves and that they can leave the country as well. They should go live in muslim countries and see how far they get in preaching tolerance to those savages. What’s even more infuriating than the muslim hordes invading the west, are leftists who have the audacity to accuse us of racism for merely concerning ourselves with our own self-preservation. Tolerance for the intolerant is suicidal. Instead liberals should be condemning the muslim immigrants for opposing the values in which they claim to uphold. Any true liberal would oppose muslim immigration.

Wesley Clark Disgraces Himself

I am disgusted with Wesley Clark for attacking John McCain and speaking as though his military service means nothing. By shilling for Hussein Obama, Wesley Clark is nothing more than a political whore and a disgrace to the uniform.

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war,” he added that these experiences in no way qualify McCain to be president in his view:

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Exactly what sort of executive responsibility has this punk from Chicago held? If McCain isn’t qualified to be commander in chief with all of his years worth of experience in the senate and in the military, then what qualifies hussein nobama who never served in the military and only became a senator three and a half years ago? Wesley Clark is a sleezy opportunist looking for a job in a potential hussein administration. No military man or woman worth his or her salt could possibly support hussein nobama over John McCain. But sadly Clark has put his personal ambitions ahead of the good of the country. What a disgrace.

Sniffer Dogs to Search Muslims in the UK

The UK has come to its senses somewhat and will allow the use of dogs to sniff out muslim passengers at train stations to search for explosives. This is over the objection of whining muslims who complain that being in contact with dogs is against their religious beliefs. Well too fucking bad. It is high time we end the dhimmitude in the west and do what is necessary for our own protection.

Questions have been raised over using sniffer dogs to search Muslim passengers at train stations following complaints that it is against their religion.

Some Muslims had raised objections over being searched by the explosive-detecting animals, but British Transport Police have said they will continue to use the specially trained animals.

Dogs are considered to be unclean or impure in Islamic teaching and it is forbidden to keep the animals as pets.

Some Muslims have objected to being searched by sniffer dog due to their religious beliefs

The complaints came after a rail security trial at Brighton station, the Government revealed.

The Muslims reported that it was not permissible for them to have direct contact with dogs due to their religious or cultural beliefs.

In another trial on the Heathrow Express platform at London's Paddington station, there were instances when the body scan was considered unacceptable on religious grounds by female Muslims, the Government report said.
Continue Reading Hat tip Dhimmi Watch

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Israel Approves Swapping Terrorists for Soldiers Bodies

Olmert continues proving he is the absolute worst leader Israel has ever had along with the rest of his horrible government that serves him. The Israeli cabinet has approved a deal with hezbollah which will result in the release of the notorious vicious and evil Lebanese terrorist, samir kantar, in exchange for the dead bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. This of course will increase the danger for Israelis as the terrorists see the payoff for kidnapping Israelis, and the added bonus for them is that they can even kill them and still receive concessions for the return of the dead bodies. Perhaps if previous swaps of terrorists for soldiers and dead bodies had not occured, Goldwasser and Regev would never have been abducted and killed. Now some future soldiers or civilians are going to pay the price for this deal. This decision is insane and a government which caves into pressure from the media and the families of kidnapped soldiers instead of making decisions based on what is best for the greater good of the country, has no business being the country's leaders. This is an absolute disgrace.

Samir kantar has served nearly 30 years for a 1979 attack on the Haran family in which he shot to death the father Danny Haran in front of his four year old daughter and then the monster smashed the little girl's skull against a rock, killing her as well. Then Danny's wife, while trying to keep her two-year old daughter quiet so they wouldn't be found in the apartment, accidentally smothered her. This is the sub-human beast that this pathetic and disgraceful government is releasing, along with a number of other terrorists. Even if the soldiers were alive, this deal still would be wrong, but the fact that they are dead, makes it all the more shocking and infuriating. And this bastard Olmert makes deals to keep himself in power, because his own power and position is all that he cares about and the country be damned.

Israel is to go ahead with an emotionally charged deal to swap a notorious Lebanese prisoner for the bodies of two soldiers seized as hostages in 2006.

The deal with the Lebanese Hezbollah militant group, which was overwhelmingly agreed by 22-3 the Israeli Cabinet today after a six hour debate, has provoked public controversy over whether Israel was giving up too much, or carrying out its highest commitment to its soldiers to do everything possible to bring them home.

Lebanese officials said Hezbollah was eager to see the deal go through, and would press for the exchange to take place by the end of the week.

Hezbollah militants captured Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in a July 2006 cross-border raid into Israel that led to a month-long war.
Related Links
Mother’s plea for prisoner swap
Israel pursues prisoner swap with Hezbollah
Kidnap soldier's plea to family in letter

In return for their bodies, the Cabinet agreed to release Samir Kantar, a Lebanese guerrilla imprisoned for nearly 30 years for an attack etched in the Israeli psyche as one of the cruellest in the nation’s history.

Hezbollah had offered no sign that Goldwasser and Regev were alive and the Red Cross was never allowed to see them. But ahead of the vote, Ehud Olmert said for the first time that Israel has concluded the two soldiers were dead, killed during the raid or shortly after.

“We know what happened to them,” the Israeli Prime Minister told the Cabinet, according to comments released by his office. “As far as we know, the soldiers Regev and Goldwasser are not alive.”

In exchange for the soldiers’ bodies, the Cabinet was asked to agree to give up Kantar, who is serving multiple life terms in a 1979 infiltration attack on a northern Israeli town. Witnesses said Kantar, then 16, shot Danny Haran in front of his four-year-old daughter, then smashed her skull against a rock with his rifle butt, killing her, too. Two Israeli policemen also were killed. Kantar denies killing the four-year-old.

During the attack, Danny Haran’s wife accidentally smothered their two-year-old daughter in a frantic attempt to keep her quiet so that Kantar and his comrades wouldn’t find them in their apartment.

In addition to Regev and Goldwasser's bodies, Israel will receive a report on a missing Israeli airman whose plane crashed in Lebanon in 1986, and body parts of other Israeli soldiers.

In addition to Kantar, Lebanon will receive four imprisoned Hezbollah fighters, a dozen bodies, most of them Hezbollah militants, and an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners. Hezbollah had demanded the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
Continue reading

Jewish Refugees From Arab Countries

It's way past time the world acknowledged the untold story of the plight of Jewish refugees who were expelled or forced to flee from Arab countries when Israel declared its independence. Not only did Arab armies wage war in an attempt to destroy the newfound state of Israel and exterminate its Jewish population, they went after Jews in their own countries. Their homes, schools, Synagogues and shrines were destroyed and many Jews were killed. As for the notion that Israeli Jews are colonialist European occupiers, half of Israel's population are Jews from Arab countries or their descendents. Yet we don't hear any talk about the "right of return" for them, not that they'd want to go back.

This week, before an audience of peers and MPs, an 80-year-old Jewish refugee named Sarah told the story of her traumatic departure in 1956 in the wake of the Suez crisis. Her husband lost his job. Taken ill, she had remained behind in Egypt with her new baby, while he left to look for work in Europe. She departed with nothing – along with 25,000 other Jews expelled by Nasser and forced to sign a document pledging that they would never return. In a final act of spite, the customs officers ransacked her suitcase and even her baby's carrycot.

Sarah was speaking at a House of Lords briefing as part of the Justice for Jews from Arab Countries congress. JJAC, an international coalition of 77 organisations, is holding its inaugural congress in London, and aims to highlight the neglected rights of (according to indisputable UN figures) 856,000 Jewish refugees like Sarah.

The exodus began 60 years ago when Arab states, hell-bent on crushing the new state of Israel militarily, also turned on their peaceful Jewish communities. Street violence killed over 150 Jews. Within 10 years, more than half the Jews had fled or been expelled, following discriminatory legislation , extortion, arrests, internment and executions. Those who remained became subjugated, political hostages of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Today 99.5% - all but 4,500 - have gone. As the historian Nathan Weinstock has observed, not even the Jews of 1939 Germany had been so thoroughly "ethnically cleansed".

The displacement of Jews from Arab countries was not just a backlash to the creation of Israel and the Arabs' humiliating defeat. The "push" factors were already in place. Arab League states drafted a law in November 1947 branding their Jews as enemy aliens. But non-Muslim minorities, historically despised as dhimmis with few rights, were already being oppressed by Nazi-inspired pan-Arabism and Islamism. These factors sparked the conflict with Zionism, and drive it to this day.
Continue reading

Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Muslim Menace in Belgium

I posted the other day on the rape of a young woman in a Brussels train station by savage muslims who objected to the fact that she was not veiled. Well the muslim menace in Belgium continues to wreak havoc on the country. A horde of barbaric Moroccan youths, Moroccan being a code word for muslim, rioted and attacked a group of white fans of the soccer team RSC Anderlecht. Everywhere muslims exist, violence ensues. There are those who, despite all evidence to the contrary, insist that islam is a religion of peace. Yet this religion of peace, for some unexplained reason, inspires murderous fanatacism amongst a high degree of its followers, something not found to occur in other religions. And muslims in Belgium and elswhere in Europe are still a small minority. Can you imagine what it will be like when they are in control. Well we know by just observing the awful situation in muslim majority countries for women and non-muslims. Native Europeans had better get their act together while they are still the majority, otherwise among other brutal sharia laws, women will find themselves some day being forced to have their clitorises cut off for allah. That is what Europe's islamic rulers will command.

Just yesterday Islam in Action reported the rape of a non-Muslim woman in Brussels, for not wearing a headscarf. Today I am here to report more Islamic hostility in Brussels. A group of Moroccan youths rioted and attacked a group of white supporters of the football club RSC Anderlecht. The evening before the attack, a blog had called for attacks on the "white" supporters of the club, and "to burn pubs, houses and cars." It seems that Muslims once again have problems getting along with non-Muslims. All we have to do is look towards Europe to see what is coming our way here in the U.S.A. There were the Islamic French riots of 2005 which spread to at least 30 towns and cities, once again in 2007, the Islamic Denmark riots which spread to at least 20 towns and were little reported by the media and now this. It is like a plague slowly spreading across Europe. Will we learn from their mistakes?

The Perfidy of the NYTimes

Bruce Bawer on the shameful and abominable history of the NYTimes' role in being a mouthpiece for dictators and whitewashing their human rights atrocities. This was done for the purpose of gaining access to the regimes, furthering careers of reporters and currying favor with their peers in the elite media. All at the expense of the freedom and very lives of millions of people living under these regimes.

Bawer focuses on Walter Duranty who was the Times Moscow correspondent during the Stalin era. During the 1932-33 Ukranian famine which Stalin deliberately perpetrated, Duranty falsely and maliciously denied it was taking place, reporting Stalinist regime propaganda that the Soviet regime was winning the faith of Ukranian peasants. During WWII, the paper failed to give major coverage to the holocaust and when it did decide to report on it at all, it was relegated to page ten and the paper did not even acknowledge the victims were exterminated because they were Jewish. The Times' Herbert Matthews also portrayed Fidel Castro as a hero during the Cuban revolution, denied he was a communist and smeared other reporters who believed otherwise. Once Castro became the country's dictator in 1959, he paid a visit to the NYTimes to thank them for their role in the revolution. He would visit the paper's offices twice more. The Times wasn't the only culprit, other media elites such as Barbara Walters, Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer cozied up to him, kissing him and throwing dinner parties for him. Of course these bastards never had to live under his oppressive regime. Imagine how the people of Cuba felt seeing western elites embrassing the dictator who was denying them the freedoms that those people enjoyed. Then there was also the Times despicable defense of the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, which went on to commit mass slaughter of the Cambodian people. The media had a direct role in that horror by undermining the war in Vietnam and agitating for the U.S. to pull out, just as they are now doing with Iraq.

A similar phenomenon is taking place in the western media today with regards to the menace of islam and the global jihad being waged, which the media is largely whitewashing and instead reporting about islam in a positive light. All of this exemplifies the moral depravity of the mainstream media and why they simply cannot be trusted at all to provide the public with the truth about world events. This is the same pernicious mindset which influences coverage of Israeli-Arab conflict.

Just imagine the world picture of somebody whose primary — or even (God forbid!) sole — source of news is the New York Times.

In particular, imagine that person’s image of Islam — and of the problems and issues surrounding the growing presence of Islam in the West today. At the Times — as at other important news organizations — the slant on Islam has been shaped almost exclusively by apologists like Karen Armstrong (author of Muhammed: A Prophet for Our Time) and John Esposito (director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University). In March, the New York Times Magazine published a long essay by another major apologist, Harvard law professor and Times Magazine contributing writer Noah Feldman, who took (shall we say) an exceedingly generous view of sharia law and its proponents. Last Sunday, the magazine ran a new piece by Feldman, arguing that Muslims are Europe’s “new pariahs” and that the only real problem related the rise of Islam in Europe today is — guess what? — European racism.

It’s a familiar claim, to put it mildly, and Feldman served up the usual rhetoric, conflating the nationalist bigots of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang party with people like the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, whose views on the Islamization of Europe are rooted in liberal values. Feldman dismissed as “prejudice” concern about first-cousin marriages among Muslims — never mind that almost all such marriages are forced, that the overwhelming majority involve rape and abuse, and that those who have campaigned hardest against them are not “racists” but women’s rights advocates. Feldman deep-sixed the catastrophic rise in rape, gay-bashing, and other crimes by young European Muslim males, the extensive abuse of European welfare systems that is helping to destroy them, and the broad-based cultural jihad which ultimately seeks nothing less than the replacement of democracy with sharia. Feldman insisted that “a hallmark of liberal, secular societies is supposed to be respect for different cultures, including traditional, religious cultures — even intolerant ones.” That’s easy to say about things happening on the other side of an ocean from your Ivy League office. I’d like to see Feldman tell this to gay people in Amsterdam, where ten years ago they felt safer than anyplace else on earth and where Muslim youths now beat them up in broad daylight in the middle of town. Or why doesn’t he try this line on Jewish children in France, who according to a French government report can no longer get an education in that country because of severe harassment (and worse) by Muslim classmates? Feldman further equated Islamic and Roman Catholic views of gays and women — as if the Church’s “rejection of homosexuality and women priests” could be compared to the execution of gays and the wholesale subordination of women to the will of men. Feldman scored Europeans for failing to treat immigrants “as full members of their society” — yet while such prejudice does indeed exist, somehow immigrants from places like Vietnam and Chile nonetheless persevere and thrive (in the U.K., Hindus are more economically successful than the average Brit), while Muslims don’t. The difference has to do not with European prejudice but with Islam.

Since 9/11, the kind of brazen sugarcoating of Islam that Feldman served up last Sunday has become a convention in the Times and other mainstream media. Routinely, news organizations suppress, downplay, or misrepresent developments that reflect badly on Islam; they go out of their way to find stories that reflect (or that can be spun in such a way as to reflect) positively on it; and they publish professors and intellectuals and “experts” like Feldman, who share the media’s determination to obscure the central role of jihadist ideology in the current clash between Islam and Western democracy and to point the finger instead (as Feldman does) at European racism.

Yet while a number of media consumers are wise to this policy regarding Islam, relatively few realize that it’s a fresh variation on a well-established tradition. This tradition — which may be fairly characterized as one of solicitude, protectiveness, and apologetics when reporting on totalitarian ideologies, movements and regimes — involves habitual practices that can be attributed partly to institutional stasis, passivity, and timidity, partly to a desire to maintain access to this or that tyrant, partly to profound failures of moral insight and responsibility, partly to inane notions of “fairness” and “balance,” partly to an unwillingness to face aspects of the real world that need to be acknowledged and dealt with, and partly to an inability to grasp (or, perhaps, to face the fact) that the status quo has changed.

To get an idea of what I’m talking about, let’s examine some highlights from the history of the Times — not only America’s most famous newspaper, but the one from which the nation’s media have, to an extraordinary extent, taken their lead for generations. These highlights do not even begin to tell the whole story of the Times’s treatment of totalitarianism over the decades, of course, but they point to something chronic, unhealthy, and dishonest at the heart of the Gray Lady’s editorial sensibility that has yet to be effectively addressed - and that has its counterparts in countless less prominent media on which the Times has long exerted a major influence.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Economic Jihad

In their eagerness to do business with the muslim world, our clueless politicians and business leaders are oblivious to the fact that they are advancing the cause of jihad against us and helping to finance the islamists goal of overtaking the west and creating a global caliphate.

Banks and other financial institutions are bending over backwards to be sharia compliant, unaware or unconcerned that a percentage of those funds are to be used for zakat, "charity" which is obligatory on the part of muslims. Of course charity in the islamic sense means the funding of terrorism and jihad, holy war.

The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari'a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel "Islamic" financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.1

Shari'a finance is a new weapon in the arsenal of what might be termed fifth-generation warfare (5GW).2 The perpetrators include both states and organizations, advancing a global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion. The end goal is to impose that ideology worldwide, making the Islamic "nation," or ummah, supreme.3

Rising oil prices and the West's dependency on Middle East oil, combined with willful blindness and political correctness, provide a surge of petrodollars, making financial and economic jihad so much easier to carry out. Moreover, according to shari'a, Muslims hold all property in trust for Allah.4 Therefore, under the shari'a, all current and historic Muslim acquisitions everywhere, including the United States, belong to the ummah, in trust for Allah.

Shari'a is the crucial source and ultimate authority dictating the actions of practicing individuals and radical Muslim states and movements alike. Failing to understand the political use of shari'a hampers the U.S. ability to mount effective policies, plans, and strategies to successfully counter this fast-growing totalitarian threat.

This ignorance is illustrated by the statements of Massachusetts representative Barney Frank and Utah senator Bob Bennett. Responding to opponents of Bourse Dubai's then-proposed acquisition of 20 percent of NASDAQ in September 2007, Frank quipped, “In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous. . . . What are we talking about here”--smuggling someone onto a stock exchange? 5 Similarly, Bennett said, “Dubai is making a purchase on the open market of an asset that's for sale. What's wrong with that?”

Although Senator Bennett is correct---buying portions or all of NASDAQ is legal, and NASDAQ regulations could not be changed without Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval---Bourse Dubai's shari'a influence in the heart of the U.S. markets and economy should have been of grave concern.

Shari'a is the set of Islamic laws established by Muslim jurists, based on the Qur'an and deeds of the prophet Muhammad, as recorded beginning more than 1,200 years ago. Its end goal, for all time, is establishing a world ruled entirely by Islam and the harsh shari'a laws. These laws govern every aspect of daily life and prohibit individual, political, and religious freedoms.
Continue reading

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Muslim Rapists in Belgium

For those who insist that islam is a religion of peace and that most muslims are peaceful, try telling that to Jews being brutally beaten by muslim immigrants in France, gays being beaten by muslims in Holland and women being raped on the streets of "enlightened" Europe by muslims for failing to be covered up. They need to open their eyes to what is occurring in Europe where muslim immigrant enclaves, unwilling to assimilate are operating as separate states under sharia law and are no-go areas for non-muslims.

In Belgium, a 21 year old woman was raped by two muslim savages at knife-point in the middle of a train station in Brussels because she was not wearing a veil. People passed by and did nothing. The fact that women can be raped out in the open on the streets of Europe with impunity, and the fact that in 21st century Europe women would feel the need to veil themselves in public in order to feel safe, should have feminists and all liberal Europeans up-in-arms. However because the perpetrators are muslims, there is no outcry. The silence from feminists is deafening. They don't want to be on the outs with their fellow travelers on the multicultural, anti-western left. The bottom line is that muslim immigration is transforming Europe into a barbaric, islamized continent which will someday be part of the islamic ummah. Europe as we have known it, will cease to exist, it will be unrecognizable in the near future. Yet despite this hostile invasion taking place, the Europeans don't have the balls to take a stand for their values and the preservation and primacy of their own culture and civilization. The answer of course is simple, with the choice between being accused of racism and seeing our civilization islamized and utterly destroyed, the choice should be an easy one, a massive expulsion of muslim immigrants back to their countries of origin and to put a complete end to any further muslim immigration. Let the civil libertarians seethe in righteous indignation. These people are undermining the very societies that enable them to function and helping to advance the cultures which deny them any freedom. Islam is a backward, violent and oppressive seventh century ideology which should have no place in the west.

Raped in the middle of the station

21-year-old Lola was attacked by two men. Some commuters witnessed it but did not react

Saint-Gilles It is an indignant father, disgusted and outraged, who speaks to us. “My daughter was raped in the Gare du Midi. In Brussels. Capital of Europe. With total impunity.”

It was June 12. “My daughter was returning from Waterloo. It was 9:00 pm. On exiting the train, she headed for the Bancontact.” A public passage. Yet this is where the tragedy took place.

“Right in the middle of a station. But how is this possible?” continues the father of Lola, who is 21 years old. “Two men accused her of not wearing the veil. My daughter is pretty. She is blonde with blue eyes.”

Everything happened very quickly after that. “One of the assailants took out a knife. My daughter was pushed up against the wall of Bancontact. With a knife at her throat, one of the boys raped her. The other watched.”
- - - - - - - - -
It was 9:00 pm. It was still light, and outside the station was far from empty. “People were passing by. My daughter is confident that she saw at least three people. None of them stopped to help her.”

The rape ended, and the attackers departed calmly. “They were two North Africans. They did not even wear hoods. And don’t tell me that I am a racist because I mention their origin! My daughter was raped because she was not wearing a veil. That’s the truth!”

Lola went to see her girlfriend. “Do I have to tell you what kind of state she was in?” A few minutes later, the young woman was hospitalized.

Obviously, a complaint was filed. “The police were very professional. Her clothes were removed as evidence. DNA was extracted.”

But, alas, the culprits are still at large… “Following the death of Joe Van Holsbeeck, it was proclaimed loud and clear that there would be more security at stations. With my daughter, you have proof that nothing has changed. There are no cameras around the Gare du Midi, which is still one of the most popular stations.”

Marc is bitter. “I’ll have no more of this Belgium where everything is permitted. It leaves lawless areas like that with young people adrift. These rapists wanted only one thing: to abuse my daughter, to possess and denigrate her because she was not like they hear that girls should be… It’s a disgrace.”

Kristof's Anti-Israel Bias

In his column "The Two Israels", the NYTimes' Nicholas Kristof exemplifies the press corps moral bankrupsy and historical ignorance regarding the Middle East. In the article he demonizes so-called Jewish "settlers" in Hebron, taking at face value the accusations of violence against Arabs made by extreme left-wing NGO's with a political agenda. He also disregards or is unaware of the historical significance of Hebron for Jews and the fact that in 1929, the Jewish community was massacred and expelled. He also ignores modern day atrocities committed by Arabs against the Jews of Hebron such as the murder of an infant, Shalhevet Pas. He also discusses the security barrier and its impact on the Arabs, yet ignores the Jewish lives that have been saved thanks to the barrier preventing the entry of suicide bombers. Why is the convenience of Arabs a priority over the very lives of Israelis by people like Kristoff? Why is it acceptable by these leftists for majority Arab areas to be declared Judenrein and why do western leftists act as though the Jews are invaders and colonialists in Judea and Samaria when they are in fact the indigenous people? This is why I have such contempt for the likes of moral degenerates like Nicholas Kristof and his ilk who constantly give aid and comfort to Israel’s enemies, ignoring the jihadists very own words about slaughtering Jews and destroying Israel. All Americans and westerners should be solidly behind Israel, but instead the media and intelligencia take the position that we should be evenhanded although the enemies of Israel are not on an equal plane morally with Israel. The reason we favor Israel should be self-evident.

NGO Monitor

In his oped, Nicolas Kristof (June 22, “The Two Israels”) illustrates the danger of the “halo effect” that surrounds many powerful non-governmental organizations, which use distorted human rights claims to promote ideological agendas. While otherwise very professional journalists question and independently verify the claims of governments, corporations, and others, the statements of groups that assert moral objectives tend to be taken at face value. In this article, Kristof extols B’tselem and Machsom Watch (the women who “volunteer at checkpoints to help Palestinians through”). As documented by NGO Monitor, both are political organizations based in Israel that have appropriated human rights rhetoric for partisan goals, mix fact with fiction, and grossly distort history in order to promote their private agendas.

For example, Kristof repeats the simplistic statements of these NGOs regarding Hebron – a city of immense religious and historical importance to the Jewish people – without mentioning the impact of the 1929 massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish community. A limited return to this historic city was only possible after 1967. Since this context is inconvenient for promoting B’tselem’s political objectives, which would mean again removing the Jewish population from Hebron, these political activists focus instead on one-sided human rights allegations in which Palestinians are always victims, and Israel is always the oppressor.

Seduced by the “halo effect”, Kristof uses B’tselem’s very narrow window to strip the wider context and sell his own interpretation of the conflict and strip it of the wider context. Following B’tselem’s lead, Kristof also ignores the human rights violations of Jewish Israelis in Hebron, including the murder of a 10 month old baby – Shalhevet Pas by a Palestinian sniper. And claims regarding the impact of Israel’s separation barrier and checkpoints completely erases the fact that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israeli lives that have been spared by preventing the entry of suicide bombers. This is also a primary human rights issue, which the activists in B’tselem and Machsom Watch find inconvenient, and which no human rights group has documented using video cameras.

Expropriating human rights rhetoric for partisan claims, erasing the context and complexity of conflict situations, and applying human rights exclusively to one side of a conflict is morally unacceptable. Such biased approaches from NGOs have severely undermined the ethical foundations and credibility of human rights, which are by definition universal and must be applied equally.

Gerald Steinberg

Also read "Never Mind the Terrorists" which fisks a different Kristof column condemning the American and Israeli policy of isolating hamas. Another example of Kristof's moral bankrupsy and cluelessness.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008


Could there be a bigger megalomaniac in American politics than Barack Hussein Obama? And that's saying alot. The use of a mock presidential seal, and his image on the American flag in place of the stars.

Hat tip Israpundit

Double Standards

Why is it that critics of Barack Hussein Obama must walk on eggshells while Obama himself consistently gets a free pass for his racist associations? Fox News Network anchor E.D.Hill was fired for her description of the Obamas fist pound. We have more stringent standards for the behavior of tv and radio personalities then someone running for president. Note the latest Imus flap over a black football player. Or I should say we have different standards for what is permitted to be said by whites about anyone black as opposed to what blacks are permitted to say with impunity.

"A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently. We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says."
Pamela at Atlas Shrugs has more on this story.

Is There a Moderate Islam?

In the so-called "moderate" islamic country of Indonesia, a recent poll was released which concluded that 52% of Indonesians support some form of sharia law, with 45% believing that women should be forced to cover their entire bodies except hands and feet and 40% favor thieves being punished by the removal of a hand. I believe it was last year that a poll came out which concluded 40% of muslims in Britain were in favor of England coming under the rule of sharia law.

Perhaps its time for us to acknowledge the unavoidable conclusion that what we in the west refer to as islamic extremism is in fact mainstream islam as practiced by the majority of the world's muslims, or at least a very large proportion of muslims. Leftists in the west consider this idea as racist or islamophobic and mistakenly believe islam is like any other religion with its good and bad side. Their standard talking point is that the extremists and terrorists are a fringe minority and that every religion has its extremists. Yet they need to ask themselves why there are no free islamic countries? Why islam, far more than any other religion inspires such widespread violent fanatacism, why when given a chance at free elections, extremists and terrorists are voted into power such as hamas in Gaza and the muslim brotherhood in Egypt? Why is it that muslims are involved in conflicts in every part of the world and why are there no Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu equivalent to al qaeda, hamas, hezbollah etc.? Liberals will also argue that economic deprivation or American and Israeli foreign policy is the cause of terrorism, even though terrorists are primarily affluent and educated and that muslim terrorism occurs regardless of American or Israeli foreign policy, in fact especially when we display weakness and appeasement. They will come up with every reason under the sun, mostly with America and Israel at fault, to explain the barbaric actions of muslims, except for the obvious answer, which is that muslims are motivated by islamic doctrine as stated in the Koran, plain and simple. But liberals refuse to accept this explanation.

To those who consider this racist, islam is not a race or an ethnicity, it is a belief system, an evil and brutally oppressive, violent and hateful ideology which I and others have every right to condemn, just as I condemn communism, nazism or fascism. So I will not accept being put into a politically correct straight jacket which deems criticism of islam and muslims taboo. It's ironic that opposing an intolerant ideology is itself deemed intolerant. Incidentally these same self-righteous leftists who condemn critics of islam as bigoted and intolerant, have no qualms about demonizing evangelical Christians. In fact, in their bizarre worldview, islam is a religion of peace while evangelical Christians are regarded as dangerous.
Hat tip Israpundit.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Guess Who Else is Endorsing Obama

This time a mouthpiece for the tyrannical Kim Jong Il regime of North Korea, has stated its hope that Hussein Obama becomes our next president because of his eagerness to appease. Obama is receiving the backing of all the world's dictators and terrorists because they will be able to take advantage of his inexperience and naivete, not to mention his radical leanings which make him sympathetic to anti-western, anti-American people around the world.

North Korea prefers Democratic candidate Barack Obama over Republican John McCain, a pro-Pyongyang newspaper in Japan said.

The communist country, which has survived a relatively hawkish Bush administration, considers McCain "a variant of Bush" and "nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives," according to the Choson Sinbo, a newspaper run by ethnic Koreans in Japan.

The organization of Koreans, called Chongryon, has served as Pyongyang's de facto embassy in Japan, which has no diplomatic ties with North Korea.
Hat tip Michelle Malkin

Antisemitic Attack in France

Another vicious antisemitic attack in France by "immigrant African youths", code for muslims. A 17 year old boy wearing a kippa was beaten in the head with metal bars by five mutants and now lays in a coma.

When will the west get its act together and bar third world, especially muslim, immigration? Why are we actively engaging in the destruction of our own civilization by inviting in the barbarians? Leftists in the west have brainwashed us into feeling guilty, into believing it is racist and unjust in preserving and taking pride in our own culture and have made us afraid to state the truth, that not all cultures are equally valid, that western civilization, especially America, is superior, a civilization which has advanced human kind and invented the concepts of democracy and human rights. We should also not be afraid to state publicly that islamic culture is backward, evil and belongs to the seventh century.

PARIS (EJP)—French Jewish organisations on Sunday condemned an anti-Semitic attack in Paris in which a Jewish teenager was severely beaten by a gang of five black African youths with metal bars.

Sammy Ghozlan, head of the Bureau for Vigilance on Anti-Semitism (BNVCA), which monitors anti-Semitic acts in the country, told EJP that a group of six or seven youths attacked the teenager with metal bars and “smashed his skull.”

He said the young man, who didn’t carry ID papers because of the Shabbat, was a member of the local Lubavitch community. He was only identified by his first name Rudi.

The 17-year-old was wearing a kippah when he was attacked in square Petit in Paris’ multi-ethnic 19th district Saturday evening at around 8:30 pm.

According to Ghozlan, the teenager was in a very grave coma when he was brought to hospital Cochin after being found lying on the ground.

Ghozlan stressed that earlier this month Jews from the same 19th district neighborhood had already expressed their concern and complained about anti-Jewish dealings of a gang of coloured youths.

Anti-Semitism is a sensitive issue in France, where the 600,000-strong Jewish community is western Europe’s largest, and which is also home to a five-million strong Muslim population.

There is no doubt that this is an anti-Semitic act,” Ariel Goldmann, vice president of CRIF, the umbrella group of French Jewish organisations, said.
He called on the French authorities “to do everything possible to arrest those responsible.”

Police said they had detained five youths in connection with the beating.

The attack occurred on the eve of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s trip to

Courts Undermining Our War Effort

The Wall Street Journal warns that we will regret the absurdity of the Supreme Court ruling which extends habeas corpus to foreign terrorists captured by American troops on foreign soil. The right to be brought before a court is meant for American citizens accused of a crime. It is not meant for foreign enemies captured during wartime. As I had previously mentioned, during WWII when nazi spies were caught off the coast of Long Island, they were tried, convicted and executed in two months time, and they were brought before a military tribunal, not a civilian court.

The jihadists must be laughing their asses off over our defeatist and self-destructive decisions knowing that regardless of how much weaker they are on the battlefield, that we will eventually defeat ourselves. All they have to do is sit back and wait. It matters little how powerful a military we have when all of its efforts and battlefield victories are being undermined by our courts. Note to liberals: these are not common criminals, they are foreign terrorists who we are at war with.

The Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush is being hailed in many quarters as a great victory for civil rights and the rule of law. It is not. In fact, it is a watershed in judicial hubris, and in the continuing trend in our society to convert every form of decision making into a lawsuit.

For the first time in our history, the Supreme Court has rejected the considered judgment of both the Congress and the president on an issue of national security. The writ of habeas corpus, a bulwark of domestic liberty, has been extended to foreign nationals whose only connection to the U.S. is their capture by our military.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion confuses the civilian criminal justice system and the waging of war. The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court places many roadblocks in the path of a conviction for a crime, and for the loss of liberty, or even life, that may follow. The guarantee of counsel, the right to subpoena witnesses and confront adverse witnesses in open court, and the suppression of evidence gathered in violation of law, all make sense in the context of domestic law enforcement. To protect liberty, we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency in our criminal justice system. Our motto remains: Let 100 guilty men go free before one innocent man is convicted.

The situation is entirely different when the nation faces an external threat. In fighting an enemy, there is no reason for the judicial branch to "check" the political branches. The idea of our judiciary protecting the "rights" of the Nazis or the Viet Cong from executive overreaching is every bit as absurd as it sounds. But had Boumediene been decided in 1940, more than 400,000 Axis troops held in more than 500 military facilities in this country during World War II would have had a right to challenge their detention in federal court.

The judiciary is not competent to make judgments about who is or is not an enemy combatant or, more generally, a threat to the U.S. The imposition of the civilian criminal justice model on decisions regarding potentially hostile aliens raises a host of questions which the Court does not even attempt to answer in Boumediene.

Must military personnel take notes in the field regarding the location, dress, and comportment of captives for later use in the "trials" mandated by the Supreme Court? Must a chain of custody be preserved on a firearm or bomb seized from an enemy combatant? Can a detainee file a writ for habeas corpus immediately upon arriving at a U.S. military base like Guantanamo Bay?

The Boumediene majority usurps decisions that should be made by the military, but answers none of these questions. In fact, judgments regarding the detention or trial of enemies require training, experience, access to and understanding of intelligence. They cannot be reduced to a particular standard of proof in a courtroom setting. The military has made mistakes at Guantanamo, among them releasing some detainees who have returned to attack American troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. God help us if the judiciary makes such a mistake and releases the next Mohammad Atta into our midst.

Here's another excellent article on this issue by Ralph Peters of the NYPost:


June 19, 2008 -- NAME-BRAND journalists have let Barack Obama make any claim he chooses about Iraq, Afghanistan or coping with terrorism without pinning him down for details.

Yet many of his comments and positions seem stunningly naive about national security. Given that this man may become our next president, shouldn't he explain how he'd do the many impressive things he's promised?

This week, Obama claimed, again, that he'd promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven't been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can't just respond, "That's classified."

He also claimed that fighting terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one (should we send the NYPD to Mosul and Kandahar?), and that the answer to terrorism is the approach taken after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, featuring conventional trials and prison terms.

That flaccid post-'93 response only encouraged terrorists - who are unfazed by the prospect of a US prison, where the quality of life's better than it was at home. The Clinton administration's hesitancy and softness gave us the subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, on our embassies in East Africa, on the USS Cole and, ultimately, the events of 9/11.

The senator needs to tell us why it would be different now.

Monday, June 23, 2008

AJC/France Undermines Israel's Interests

Speaking of Jews who work against the interests of their fellow Jews and Israel, the representative of the American Jewish Committee/France, Valerie Hoffenberg, is shilling for the Sarkozy government. She made a trip to Bethlehem to pressure Israel to remove roadblocks which protect Israel's citizens from Arab terrorists, for the sake of a planned industrial park in Bethlehem. If this woman chooses to work on behalf of the interests of the French government, she has no business being a representative of a Jewish organization. She cannot be both, it is a conflict of interest. I'm sick and tired of the security of Israel and the safety of its citizens being subordinate to the interests of European governments and businesses. And I'm sick of the west prioritizing the convenience of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria over the lives of the Jews of Israel.

AJC/France has also thwarted Philippe Karsenty's efforts to expose the al dura hoax. There are far too many "Jewish" organizations working against the interests of Jews and Israel and aiding and abetting our enemies.

President Sarkozy will arrive in Israel on Sunday. According to a June 13, 2008 article (translation provided below) in the Arab media, based on French sources, the American Jewish Committee’s Paris representative, Valerie Hoffenberg, visited Bethlehem on June 12, 2008, in order to do advance work for Sarkozy’s stay during which he will lay the cornerstone on a planned industrial park in Bethlehem. Concurrently, he is expected to make serious demands of Israel that will further the economic, diplomatic and strategic interests of France and the Palestinian Authority.

But, who owns the AJC/France? Does the organization serve the interests of French Jews? Is it the handmaiden of the French government? Or is it a friend and mentor to the Palestinian Authority? If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, do these divided loyalties spell conflict of interest?

The question is a reasonable one. Philippe Karsenty has accused the AJC/France of thwarting his efforts to expose the al Dura hoax to the light of day in two widely circulated letters to which the organization has publically responded. An article detailing the dispute was published in the Jerusalem Post. Karsenty accused the AJC’s Paris representative, Valerie Hoffenberg, of maneuvering behind-the-scenes to block his access to government officials, and of arguing that his contentions concerning al Dura had no merit.

Karsenty was sued for defamation by France’s largest publically owned and controlled television station and its acclaimed journalist, Charles Enderlin, for his accusation that their report of the shooting death of an Arab boy in Gaza, on September 30, 2000, by Israeli soldiers was a staged hoax. He was found innocent on appeal on May 21, 2008.

AJC President, David Harris, dismissed Karsenty’s charges, responding, “You might as well accuse us of passing nuclear secrets to the Iranians.” France’s Jewish community was ill-served by Harris’s cynical rejoinder, meant to undermine Karsenty’s credibility, and to deflect attention from the substance of his concerns, namely: whom does American Jewish Committee represent? Jews? The French government? Or the Arabs? Silence and inaction on the al Dura hoax protects French diplomacy, costs Jewish lives, and gives aid and comfort to Arab lies.

Concerning Valerie Hoffenberg’s visit to Bethlehem on June 12, 2008, the same question must be asked. Was she on a mission for the French government, the Palestinian Authority or the American Jewish Committee? The purpose of the visit was to facilitate the creation of a French industrial zone in Bethlehem for the benefit of Arabs living in Judea and Samaria. Obviously, French and Arab diplomatic, strategic as well as economic interests are at stake. On the Arab side, vested foreign economic interests in a future Palestinian state function to make it a fait accompli irrespective of the success or failure of negotiations with Israel. French and other foreign economic investment and commitment to such a state, in advance of negotiations and agreement with Israel, will increasingly box Israel into a corner from which no exit is possible and further constrain her ability to act in her own strategic and diplomatic interests. Is Valerie Hoffenberg’s involvement in this process suitable to her role as representative of AJC/France?

The project has run into difficulty due to Israeli policies. Valerie Hoffenberg met with the mayor and prefect of Bethlehem, as well as the Council General of France, to strategize over wresting concessions from the Israeli government in order to make the project a reality.

The land for the industrial zone has not yet been identified due to difficulties created by the “Israeli occupation”.

The project’s success depends on Israel. The French delegation in which Valerie Hoffenberg participated was concerned specifically with persuading (read pressuring) the Israeli government to remove checkpoints erected to thwart terrorist attacks against Jews. Furthermore, Israel is expected to supply land, water and power for the industrial zone.

On whose behalf is Valerie Hoffenberg negotiating? If her goal is to benefit the Palestinian Authority, can it be affirmed that she is functioning in her capacity as representative of the AJC/France?

Perhaps French Jews would be more comforted if Hoffenberg were negotiating to forestall as many concessions as possible rather than endeavoring to pressure Israel to grant as many as possible.

Roadblocks save lives. Their removal spells death to future, but inevitable, Jewish victims of Arab terrorists who will henceforth be unhindered by the inconvenience of a stop and search.

Not all AJC donors and supporters would be pleased to know that, in addition to being an obstacle to the truth in the al Dura case, its Paris representative went to Bethlehem last week in preparation for Sarkozy’s forthcoming visit to Israel. It is reasonable to wonder whether her role in easing Sarkozy’s bargaining position on behalf of French and Arab economic, strategic and diplomatic aspirations constitutes a conflict of interest with her role in AJC/France. Though David Harris may not be dealing nukes to Iran, his agent in France is certainly dealing death to Israelis in furthering the ambitions of their murderous peace partner. By all means, let’s not inconvenience the terrorists! Down with checkpoints!
Hat tip Israpundit

Bloomberg Disgraces Himself

The disgraceful mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg shills for Hussein Obama down in Florida, attempting to convince Jewish voters to vote against their own interests by telling them lies such as Obama being committed to Israel's security and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also criticized those he called "demagogues" for spreading a "whispering campaign", urging Jews to reject what he considers wedge politics.

Speaking at a breakfast meeting of the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, Bloomberg said both Obama and the Republican’s presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, were both committed to maintaining Israel’s military security and to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Bloomberg said Jews, as voters, should welcome a spirited political debate “focused on the facts, and not let it descend into false rumor and innuendo.

Yet Bloomberg is the one choosing to ignoring facts, like the fact that Obama spent 20 years in a virulently antisemitic church with an equally virulently antisemitic pastor who was also Obama's spiritual advisor, not to mention his numerous anti-Israel foreign policy advisors, his friendship with the anti-Israel Rashid Khalidi who referred to Israel's founding as a catastrophe and defended suicide bombings against Israelis. Then of course there is Obama's nation of islam staffers. Now how does all that square with someone who is a friend of the Jewish people and committed to Israel's security?

“Unfortunately, we’ve already seen that happen,” Bloomberg said. “As I’m sure many of you know, there are plenty of emails floating around the Internet targeting Jewish voters and saying that Senator Obama is secretly a Muslim, and a radical one at that. Let’s call those rumors what they are — lies.”

Really? Well, Hussein Obama's half brother and his childhood friends from Indonesia say he was raised a muslim and practiced islam and studied the Koran. He can recite the islamic call to prayer in Arabic and has said the islamic call to prayer is the prettiest sound on Earth. He at least has strong islamic influences even if he is not currently a practicing muslim. But if you ask me, he converted to Christianity only because it was better for his political career.

Bloomberg said those spreading the rumors were pretending to be concerned about Israel’s security, but in reality “Israel is just being used as a pawn, which is not that surprising, since some people are willing to stoop to any level to win an election.”

It sounds to me like Bloomberg is the one pretending to be concerned about Israel's security and just using Israel as a pawn to help Obama win an election.

Bloomberg added, “And in this election, we must all stand up to this whisper campaign against Senator Obama. That’s because it threatens to undo the enormous strides that Jews and Muslims have made together in this country — and the enormous strides that Jews and African Americans have made together.

What strides are those? What planet does Bloomberg reside on? Polls have shown blacks to harbor the highest percentage of antisemitism of any racial or ethnic group in America. And muslim antisemitism goes without saying, muslims are the most antisemitic people on Earth, with their schools and mosques preaching Jew-hatred on a regular basis, including in America.

He later said in his speech, “It’s up to us to reject the politics of ethnic and religious division. It’s up to us to speak out against the lies and prejudice. It’s up to us to stand up for the truth.”

As I've pointed out, Obama and his campaign have been the ones responsible for religious and ethnic division. They race-baited in the primary to secure the block of black voters who Obama was trailing with before and at the start of the primary. Obama has spent his adult life befriending people who hate whites and Jews.

Bloomberg, a billionaire in his final term as mayor, flirted with the idea of running for president himself — taking extensive polling and meeting with a ballot-access expert in Texas — before announcing that he would not be a candidate. He has since been mentioned as a possible running mate for either McCain or Obama.

Now we see where his motivation lies. Bloomberg is a disgrace for whoring himself to obama and selling out his own people and this country for that matter, for a potential VP spot. Hat tip Israpundit

Sunday, June 22, 2008

The Latest Haveil Havalim

Edition #170 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is up at Soccerdad this week.

Israel Capitulates to its Enemies

The ceasefire with hamas is a bad deal for Israel. I’m so tired of the conventional wisdom that there is no military solution to terrorism. Of course there is, but Israel, America and the west lacks the political will and the stomach for a fight with the jihadists. If we had fought WWII like this, the nazis would still be in power. Peace comes through total victory, through vanquishing the enemy.

Israel can defeat hamas and hezbollah, render them non-existent, but is fearful of the international condemnation as a result of so many Arab casualties. These ceasefires and limited strikes only prolong war by keeping the terror groups operating. Hamas calls for ceasefires whenever they are weakened and need to rearm. That is precisely the moment that Israel should unleash it’s full force against a weakened hamas.
An Egyptian-brokered, six-month truce between Israel and Hamas took hold this morning. Both sides have voiced their misgivings about the potential for the ceasefire to last. Indeed, just before the calm took hold, 30 rockets were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israel. Looking forward, there are numerous reasons to believe that this ceasefire will backfire on Israel, or even weaken its advantage over Hamas.

The Jerusalem Post notes that previous declarations of tahdiyeh (Arabic for "period of calm") cast doubt on "the likelihood of this latest truce holding at all." In February 2005, a similar ceasefire was announced, lasting until June 2006. "But the interim was fraught with rocket attacks on Israeli territory." At one point, "dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, killing a 22 year-old woman."

But, even if the calm lasts to term, one key question lingers: how can it strengthen Israel's long-term strategic position?

Celebrated historian Michael Oren notes that the ceasefire is providing Hamas with an opportunity to "regroup and rearm." As far back as 2002, Seth Wikas of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that throughout the Oslo years (1993-2000), Hamas offered nine ceasefires to Israel. In many cases, they followed periods of confrontation with the Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority, Hamas' political rival. Wikas notes, in fact, that all Hamas ceasefire offers have come at a time when "Hamas needed a ‘breather' – a moment to step back and regroup after an organizationally exhausting confrontation with a more powerful foe (Israel or the PA)."

In this case, the siege of Gaza has undoubtedly been a drain on Hamas. By granting a ceasefire, Israel is providing Hamas this much-needed "breather," during which Iran can help train additional fighters and provide Hamas with more advanced weapons in preparation for the next round of conflict with Israel.

The tahdiyeh provides Hamas with other perks, too. Oren observes that the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire "yields Hamas greater benefits than it might have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control."

Thus, the Palestinian Press is proudly touting the ceasefire as a Hamas victory over the "Zionist enemy." Isam Shawar in the Palestinian newspaper Filastin notes that, "Hamas proved that it is impossible to destroy or even weaken... In the end, Israel found that a truce with Hamas is the best and least damaging solution." Ibrahim Ibrash in the Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam further states that by accepting the truce, "Israel accepts coexistence not with a national unity government of which Hamas is a part, but with a Hamas government and authority exclusively."
Continue reading

Also read this excellent column by Caroline Glick regarding the recent disasterous capitulations by the Olmert government:
The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's liquidation sale of Israel's strategic assets opened officially this week. Iran's proxies have pounced on the merchandise.

The first asset sold was the security of southern Israel. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's "cease-fire" with Hamas transferred all power to determine the fate of the residents of southern Israel to Iran's Palestinian proxy.

Under the "agreement," Hamas will refrain from attacking Sderot, Ashkelon, Netivot and surrounding kibbutzim for as long as it serves its interests. Since temporarily halting its attacks on southern Israel is the only thing that Hamas has agreed to do, it will use the lull in fighting to build up its arsenal and its military infrastructures in Gaza. When it has built up its forces sufficiently, or when its Iranian overlords give it the order, Hamas will again attack southern Israel. And when it reengages, it can be assumed that it will do so with a vastly expanded missile range. So under the guise of the "cease-fire," Hamas will place hundreds of thousands more Israelis at its mercy.

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's agreement with Hamas does more than sell out the security of the South. The agreement also divests Israel of its former ability to isolate Hamas diplomatically. Fatah's renewal of negotiations toward reconciling with Hamas is a direct consequence of Israel's actions. As these talks unfold, it is clear to all concerned that they will not lead to any sort of power sharing agreement between the two parties. Hamas today holds all the power in Palestinian society. Israel's acceptance of Hamas's power over the safety of Israeli citizens only amplified this fact. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas - who cannot even travel to Nablus without IDF protection - is not approaching Hamas as an equal, but as a supplicant.

Moreover, Israel's willingness to allow Gazans to enter Israel, and its acceptance of Hamas's control over the Rafah international terminal that separates Gaza from Egypt, constitutes de facto Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime in Gaza. And the direct consequence of Israel's diplomatic and strategic capitulation to Hamas is that no one in either the Arab world or the West today will agree to isolate or boycott Hamas.

But the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care. Israel's leaders actually don't want anyone to isolate or boycott Hamas anymore. The government's reported negotiations regarding the deployment of an all-Arab "peacekeeping" force in Gaza in a later phase of the "cease-fire" make clear that Israel is pushing for Hamas's international legitimization.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Gaddafi: Obama is a Muslim

For those who accuse critics of Obama for engaging in "smear" tactics by claiming he's a muslim, well Libya's dictator Mu’ammar Gaddafi made a speech broadcast on Al Jazeera praising the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama and referring to him as a muslim.

There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency. But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother, who is an American national, made statements that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world. We hope that this is merely an elections “clearance sale,” as they say in Egypt – in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections – a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him: :“You promised this and that,” he says: “No, this was just elections propaganda.” This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: “This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes.”
Allah willing, it will turn out that this was merely elections propaganda. Obama said he would turn Jerusalem into the eternal capital of the Israelis. This indicates that our brother Obama is ignorant of international politics, and is not familiar with the Middle East conflict.

Aren't you thrilled with the prospect of having a president who islamic dictators and terrorists consider to be one of them? America's enemies from islamic fascists to communists feel a kinship with Hussein Obama. Shouldn't this tell Americans to reject him en masse?

As for those who say it doesn't matter if he is or was a muslim, I beg to differ. It does matter to me and should matter to every American. Islam isn't like other religions, it is not simply a personal faith, but a political idealogy, one that is especially dangerous, violent and oppressive. That is an undeniable fact although leftist apologists for islam would like to pretend otherwise. So I do have a problem with Obama's muslim background and am concerned about whether he believes in this ideology regardless of the fact that it makes me politically incorrect. It isn't bigoted or intolerant to be leery of islam and muslims, islam isn't a race or ethnicity, it is a belief system in which we have the right to question, in fact we have a duty to reject islam as necessary for our survival as a civilization. There is a reason why no muslim country is free. Sharia law is the foundation of islam, so therefore if Obama is a muslim, his belief system would be in conflict with our constitution which the president is sworn to uphold. That would make him unfit for the presidency.

Hezbollah Ready to Strike Jewish Targets

ABC news has reported that hezbollah sleeper cells in Canada have been activated and are seeking to target synagogues and the Israeli embassy in Ottawa, which they have been recently surveiling. Latin America could also be a target. Hezbollah has been threatening revenge against Jewish and Israeli targets ever since the assassination of hezbollah terror honcho Imad Mughniyeh. The U.S. isn't on the target list because of fear president Bush might attack hezbollah and Iran. I suppose Iran, hezbollah and all the other terror groups are patiently waiting and hoping for Obama to get in the White House so then they can feel safe to attack us. And then Hussein Obama can sit down and have a dialogue and apologize to the terrorists for America having provoked them into attacking us.

Intelligence agencies in the United States and Canada are warning of mounting signs that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is poised to mount a terror attack against "Jewish targets" somewhere outside the Middle East.

Intelligence officials tell ABC News the group has activated suspected "sleeper cells" in Canada and key operatives have been tracked moving outside the group's Lebanon base to Canada, Europe and Africa.

Officials say Hezbollah is seeking revenge for the February assassination of Hezbollah's military commander, Imad Mugniyah, killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.

The group's leaders blamed Israel, an allegation denied by Israeli officials.

There is no credible information on a specific target, according to the officials.

Suspected Hezbollah operatives have conducted recent surveillance on the Israeli embassy in Ottawa, Canada and on several synagogues in Toronto, according to the officials.

Latin American is also considered a possible target by officials following Hezbollah's planning.

A senior US counter-terrorism official told ABC News, "There are concerns Hezbollah might be ready to do something along those lines."

Three US law enforcement agencies say they have been briefed on the developments by intelligence agencies.

A spokesperson for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says the agency does not comment on the existence of ongoing intelligence operations.

Officials say the CIA, the NSA, and British and Canadian intelligence agencies began to pick up a steady stream of information - from electronic intercepts, human sources and surveillance - about a possible Hezbollah attack on Feb. 17, just days after the Beirut funeral of Mugniyah where Hezbollah leaders publicly declared they would seek revenge.

"They want to kill as many people as they can, they want it to be a big splash," said former CIA intelligence officer Bob Baer, who says he met with Hezbollah leaders in Beirut last month.

"They cannot have an operation fail," said Baer, "and I don't think they will. They're the A-team of terrorism."

Alarms were first raised in Canada, where as many as 20 suspected Hezbollah members have been under surveillance after as many as four suspected "sleeper cells" were activated, including one known as "Rashedan," intelligence officials tell ABC News. The members also received instruction to send their family members home to Lebanon, according to officials.

Officials have also reported that a known Hezbollah weapons expert was followed to Canada, where he was seen at a firing range south of Toronto, near the US border.

Intelligence officials said the recent Hezbollah activities were being coordinated with the help of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.

"Hezbollah would not carry out an attack in the west, or wherever this attack is going to occur, without approval from Tehran," said Baer, the former CIA intelligence officer.

Baer says his Hezbollah contacts told him an attack against the US was unlikely because Iran and Hezbollah did not want to give the Bush administration an excuse to attack.
Continue reading

Friday, June 20, 2008

Global Antisemitism

Watch this must-see video The Path to the Final Solution, about the resurgence of worldwide antisemitism, from muslims to neo-nazis, radical leftists, the cultural and academic elite, the media and government officials. Hat tip Israpundit.

Protesters Demand Madrassa Be Shut-down

A little bit of positive news on the education jihad front. The head of that wahabbi saudi-run madrass in Virginia has been arrested on charges of failing to report child abuse. And also several protesters representing the Traditional Values Coalition, the UAC and Act For America lined up outside the islamic school with signs that said "Saudi hate is not an American family value" and "Islamic Shariah teaches violence and hate" and demanding that the Justice and State departments investigate the madrassa. Textbooks used at the school indoctrinate students to kill adulterers and converts from islam, hatred of Jews, and that muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those that are deemed as "polytheists." It's great to see people taking a stand for our common American values and resisting islamic encroachment into our society. There needs to be millions of Americans taking such a stand.

The director of a Saudi government-funded Islamic school has been arrested and charged with failing to report a child abuse allegation, adding to scrutiny of the northern Virginia academy as protesters came out Tuesday to call for a federal investigation of its teachings.

Abdalla I. Al-Shabnan, director of the Islamic Saudi Academy, was also charged with obstruction of justice, according to a police report about the June 9 arrest.

Al-Shabnan's arrest came after police claim he covered up an incident in which a 5-year-old girl attending the school reported to teachers that she was being sexually abused by her father.

The teacher and the school's principal then reported the allegations to the school's director, Al-Shabnan, at the main campus in Alexandria (web|news) . Instead of calling police, Al-Shabnan called the little girl's father. Al-Shabnan told the father, "[it] could be embarrassing to both the parent and the school," and that the girl should be "withdrawn from attendance."

But state law requires school authorities to report alleged child abuse within 72 hours of learning of the allegation. Al-Shabnan is free pending trial.

Police said in court papers that Al-Shabnan ordered a written report about the girl's complaint, which had been prepared by other school officials, to be deleted from a school computer.

Fairfax County (web|news) Residents were divided on what some say is just the latest of a string of incidents tainting the school's reputation.

"Put more attention into it because it's not normal for a five-year-old to go to their principal and tell them that they're being abused," said Imelda Sanchez.

More than a dozen protesters lined up outside the school Tuesday, waving signs that read "Saudi hate is not an American family value" and "Islamic Shariah teaches violence and hate."

The protesters, including the conservative Traditional Values Coalition, want the Justice and State departments to investigate the school. The State Department last year obtained copies of the school's textbooks but has so far refused to make them public.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the coalition, said the arrest of Al-Shabnan is just further evidence of problems at the school.

"The academy is a virtual one-stop shopping center for law enforcement," she said, citing the case of former school valedictorian Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted of joining Al-Qaida after leaving the school and plotting to assassinate President Bush.
Continue reading

Another Obama Terror Connection

Another terrorist connection to Barack Hussein Obama has been uncovered. The son of Mohammed Al-Churbajia, who is a major al qaeda terrorist, is an obama fundraiser. Al-Churbajia is a Syrian living in Ann Arbor Michigan who helped organize, fundraise and transport arms to al qaeda jihadists around the world under the guise of "humanitarian aid". He had been deported at one time but unfortunately was allowed to return to the U.S. because of corrupt embassy officials. He was recently on trial for deportation. His son, Obama fundraiser Mohamed Salim Al-Churbaji a/k/a Salim Alchurbaji, is a student at the University of Michigan and has recently made at least two trips to Syria. Because he was born on U.S. soil, this terrorist spawn is unfortunately an American citizen.

This is quite a frightening time in America where the presumed democratic party nominee for president is virtually an unknown quantity who most Americans had never heard of just a few years ago, who seemingly emerged out of nowhere with no record of achievement or experience and with ties to various anti-American radicals and now as we find out, links to foreign terrorists. By selecting as its candidate this fraud, serial liar, political gangster and malcontent who is not one of us, but rather feels a kinship with the muslim world, is also a reflection of how morally bankrupt the democratic party itself has become. It has degenerated into an entity which finds common cause with America's enemies and feels an increasing discomfort being associated with real Americans, those working class folks who used to be the base of the democratic party and who are finding themselves being pushed out by the far left elite, those who consider themselves citizens of the world not Americans, and who embrace multiculturalism, including and especially the islamists who ironically represent the antithesis of what these liberals claim to believe in.

Debbie Shlussel has the exclusive story on the al qaeda terrorist son and fundraiser for Obama:

One of Al-Qaeda's top terrorists still in America was recently on trial for deportation. And almost no-one noticed.

I was the only journalist to cover the April/May trial of Mohammed Al-Churbaji a/k/a "Abu Salim," a/k/a "Abu Mohammed Salim," at Immigration Court in Detroit.

And the Al-Churbaji trial was illustrative of the multiple Achilles heels of American counterterrorism and immigration policies:

Mohammed Al-Churbaji, Dad of Obama Fundraiser
Worked for Azzam, Bin Laden

* How hard it is to get rid of known terrorists in our midst and how easy it is for a deported Al-Qaeda terrorist to return to America;

* How corrupt U.S. embassy officials get away with re-admitting terrorists into the U.S.;

* How easily terrorists and their families gain acceptance by our society, including the Barack Obama Presidential campaign;

* How America's universities are not tools of moderation for Muslim foreigners, but breeding grounds for terrorist fraternization and conception for international terrorist plots; and

* How terrorist anchor babies take root, even if we succeed in deporting their parents.

Mohammed Imad Al-Churbaji is one of Al-Qaeda's top terrorists in America. His connections at the top of Al-Qaeda are tight and span the global Al-Qaeda network, from Syria to Hamburg to Spain to Afghanistan to Peshawar to Ein El-Hilweh and Dunniyeh, Lebanon, to Ann Arbor, Michigan, to HAMAS operations in Richardson, Texas.

In between a sham marriage to an American and stints in the U.S., Al-Churbaji lived with top Al-Qaeda martyrs and figures and worked for the co-founder of Al-Qaeda and its spiritual leader. And he helped organize, fundraise for, and transport arms (claiming it's "humanitarian aid") to Al-Qaeda jihadists around the Muslim world. Al-Churbaji made a career of working for organizations known as Al-Qaeda fronts.

Al Churbaji is a Syrian national currently living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, from where he is fighting the Department of Homeland Security's endeavors to deport him. If successful, this will be the second deportation for Al-Churbaji, after a return to the U.S. that violated federal immigration and deportation policies. More on that later.

But even if Al-Churbaji is deported, at least two of his six children, a son and a daughter, were both born here and are by law U.S. citizens. These terrorist anchor babies can carry on what he started.

One of them is his son, Mohamed Salim Al-Churbaji a/k/a Salim Alchurbaji (heretofore referred to as, "Salim"). He is a student at the University of Michigan and serves as a Barack Obama fundraiser and organizer, according to Salim's own testimony. He testified that he, Salim, has made at least one recent trip to terrorist host state Syria, their father's native country, but his brother testified that it was actually at least two trips, including one in the last year-and-a-half.

What were they doing in Syria--a country where they could be tortured due to their father's memberships in the Muslim Brotherhood? We may never find out. A College Democrats activist and political chairman of the U-M Muslim Students Association, Salim also done some modeling and fancies himself as something of a male supermodel. But you can bet, he wasn't posing or exploring fashion in Syria.
Continue reading

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Is Israel Planning to Strike Iran?

I certainly hope so and with the prospect of an obama presidency, the need to take military action against Iran becomes all the more urgent.

Mission Doable:

The Israeli government no longer believes that sanctions can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. A broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities — without the Americans, if necessary — is beginning to take shape.

Dani Yatom, a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, was invited to attend a NATO conference in Brussels last year. While reviewing the agenda, Yatom, a retired major general, was surprised to see that the meeting was titled “The Iranian Challenge” and not “The Iranian Threat.”

When a speaker with a French accent mentioned that a US military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would be the most dangerous scenario of all, Yatom said, politely but firmly: “Sir, you are wrong. The worst scenario would be if Iran acquired an atom bomb.”

Yatom, 63, has spent most of his life in the military. He was a military adviser to former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and, in the mid-1990s, was named head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency. Nevertheless, Yatom, a member of the Labor Party, is not some reckless hawk. Unlike most Knesset members, he flatly rejects, for example, a major Israeli offensive against the Islamist Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

But Yatom’s willingness to strike a compromise ends when he is asked what he considers to be the best response to the Iranian nuclear program. “We no longer believe in the effectiveness of sanctions,” says Yatom. “A military operation is needed if the world wants to stop Iran.”

When Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former defense minister, expressed similar sentiments 10 days ago, they were viewed, especially in Europe, as the isolated opinions of a card-carrying hardliner seeking to score points with the electorate in a bid to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In truth, however, there is now a consensus within the Israeli government that an air strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities has become unavoidable. “Most members of the Israeli cabinet no longer believe that sanctions will convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to change course,” says Minister of Immigrant Absorption Yaakov Edri.

The one question over which Israel’s various political groups disagree is the timing of an attack. The doves argue that diplomatic efforts by the United Nations should be allowed to continue until Iran is on the verge of completing the bomb. That way, Israel could at least argue convincingly that all non-military options had been exhausted.

The hawks, on the other hand, believe time is running out. They stress that there is now a “favorable window of opportunity” that will close with the US presidential election in November, and that Israel can only depend on American support for as long as current US President George W. Bush is still in charge in Washington. They are convinced that the country cannot truly depend on any of the candidates to succeed Bush in office. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate, has already said that he favors direct negotiations with Tehran. And even if Republican John McCain wins the race, politicians in Jerusalem do not expect him to be ordering an attack as his first official act — despite his performance, at a campaign appearance last year, of the Beach Boys’ song “Barbara Ann” with the lyrics: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”

President Bush, however, has recently been sending out signals that are suspiciously reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war. Then, as today, he insisted that “all options are on the table.” And then, as today, he sought to appease the Europeans by saying that all diplomatic channels would be exhausted first. But during his recent visit to Slovenia, Bush said: “There’s a lot of urgencies when it comes to dealing with Iran, and the Israeli political folks … if you go to Israel and listen carefully, you’ll hear that urgency in their voice.”

An Iranian nuclear bomb would overshadow all other threats that Israel has faced during the 60 years of its existence. As costly as its wars have been, and as horrific the suicide bombings of radical Islamists may be, they can never pose a serious threat to the existence of the Jewish state.

But a single nuclear strike would have devastating consequences for this small country, which is only about half the size of Switzerland. In fact, international strategists commonly refer to Israel as a “one-bomb country.”

Jerusalem’s military leaders claim that Tehran could curtail every Israeli military campaign — in the Gaza Strip, for example — with only the credible threat of a nuclear strike. Despite its military strength, they say, the country would be practically defenseless. Even worse, the mere existence of an Iranian nuclear bomb, the government in Jerusalem believes, would trigger an exodus of the educated elite that could spell disaster for the country, both economically and culturally. “Iran would be in a position to destroy the Zionist dream without even pressing a button,” says Ephraim Sneh, a retired general and cabinet minister for many years.

All experts agree that the Iranian bomb doesn’t yet exist. Nevertheless, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten the Jewish state with destruction at every opportunity. “If the enemy thinks they can break the Iranian nation with pressure, they are wrong,” he said last week.

Even the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, voiced in a recent SPIEGEL interview his concern that Iran is sending out the message that it could “build the bomb in a relatively short period of time.”

And no one knows better than the Israeli leadership just how much power lies in the mere belief that a country has nuclear weapons. After all, Israel itself has used this belief as a deterrent for the past 40 years. It is believed that an estimated 100 to 200 nuclear warheads have been produced at the Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert. Israeli historian Benny Morris, who is not normally considered a hardliner, recently suggested using the weapons: “If the issue is whether Israel or Iran should perish, then Iran should perish.”

Jerusalem has already demonstrated that it is not only prepared for, but also technically capable of, frustrating the nuclear ambitions of a hostile country. In 1981, the Israelis bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor. Flying in tight formation to avoid being detected by enemy radar, eight F-16 fighter-bombers traveled 900 kilometers (560 miles) from Israel to Iraq, where they dropped 16 thousand-kilo bombs, destroying the reactor. Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, revealed that the Israelis had paid a French technician working in the reactor to plant a transponder there.

The second time was on Sept. 6, 2007, when Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers entered northern Syrian airspace along the Turkish border and destroyed a suspected nuclear site in eastern Syria. Before the attack, a group of special forces soldiers were reportedly dropped off on the ground to mark the target for a laser beam. To this day, the government in Damascus claims that the site was not a nuclear facility. However, images the Mossad has obtained of the building’s interior allegedly reveal similarities with the North Korean reactor in Yongbyon.

Iran could be next. In a recent letter to Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak wrote that Tehran is not far from the “point of no return” at which the Israelis believe it could no longer be prevented from developing a bomb. Israeli intelligence officials believe that Iranian weapons engineers could have enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear warhead by 2009.

In reaching this conclusion, the Israelis are expressly contradicting the assertion, put forward in a report by US intelligence issued last December, that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003. “The Iranians resumed the program at full speed in 2005,” says Yossi Kuperwasser, the director for intelligence analysis with Israeli military intelligence at the time.

‘We Will See a Middle East in Flames’

While the Europeans continue to pin their hopes on diplomacy and are convinced that a negotiated solution that would allow Tehran to save face is still possible, the Israelis already view the UN sanctions regime as a failure. Russia and China, they say, sabotaged the boycott from the very beginning, and even the Europeans have only half-heartedly supported sanctions.

According to the Israelis, companies from Austria and Switzerland have recently signed agreements for the delivery of natural gas with Tehran, and even the German government has only slightly limited trade with the mullah-run regime. “The Iranians don’t even feel the sanctions,” says Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. According to Hanegbi, the international community will have to unite if it hopes to achieve anything — “and soon.”

Europe does not take the Iranian nuclear threat seriously nor does it care because they don’t expect to be its targets. So they continue doing business with Iran. Those countries hollering the loudest against a U.S. or Israeli military confrontation with Iran are the ones who will make that scenario happen because of their continued economic cooperation with the Iranian terror regime. They keep pleading about letting diplomacy and economic sanctions work, yet they refuse to stop doing business with Iran. So whatever consequences occur as a result of Israel being forced to strike Iran, it will be the fault of Europe. Of course I don’t expect them to acknowledge that, they will predictably condemn Israel for not committing suicide for the sake of “peace”. Hat tip Israpundit