Palestinian Refugees vs. the Arabs Posted By David Meir-Levi URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/24/palestinian-refugees-vs-the-arabs/ In 2008, during a presentation at a panel discussion on the Middle East conflict at Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, CA), a young Arab-American lady claiming to be a “Palestinian refugee” posed to the present writer the following question: “Why can […]
‘They Stole Our Land’ vs. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/25/%e2%80%9cthey-stole-our-land%e2%80%9d-vs-the-grand-mufti-of-jerusalem/
The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land. This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there. So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land.
Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion. There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc. This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted. For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here).
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/25/old-middle-east-resurfacing-in-cairo/
‘Old’ Middle East Resurfacing in Cairo Posted By P. David Hornik
As of Friday morning, it was expected in Cairo that, later in the day, up to a million people would be confronting the Egyptian army in the Tahrir Square area. It had earlier been reported that the target of such a gathering would be the “Judaization” of Jerusalem. By now, though, it appears clear that if the event occurs, the fury will be directed mainly at Egypt’s own military regime that has tried to hold things together since President Hosni Mubarak was thrown out of office last winter.
Tens of thousands of anti-regime protesters have been swarming in the Tahrir Square area for about a week. Police have killed about 40 and wounded hundreds. A ceasefire was attempted on Thursday morning, with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi’s regime going so far as to apologize for the deaths and promising to prosecute the perpetrators. But by Thursday afternoon it had already broken down with fresh outbreaks of violence.
Unlike those of Qaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria, the regime is not bent on staying in power at any price and indeed appears desperate to try and appease the protesters. Parliamentary elections are set for Monday, and the regime moved presidential elections up from 2013 to next spring. But the protesters out in the streets—some of them—appear driven by a blind fury and keep demanding that the regime step down immediately.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/666/denial_continues_amid_latest_evidence_on_britain_s_abysmal_national_health_service
Denial continues amid latest evidence on Britain’s abysmal National Health Service
The OECD’s report provides shocking new data on Britain’s socialised health system but even the Conservative-led government wouldn’t have it any other way.
The more you drill down into the latest report from the 34 nation Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on health care performance the worse it looks for Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).
In 2009, for the first time, the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health in Britain exceeded the OECD average. So, given that it is a received wisdom bordering on religious doctrine that Britain has “the best health system in the world” that inevitably means performance for patients is nothing short of outstanding. Or not.
In fact, in some areas the NHS is being outperformed by the formerly communist countries of central and eastern Europe none of which chose to emulate the British model when deciding which kind of health care system to adopt in the transition from communism.
As the report shows, 84 percent of health care spending in the UK comes from the state. The OECD average is 72 percent. Put another way, in the average OECD country the private sector is almost twice as big a player in health provision as in the UK.
And that, the evidence suggests, makes all the difference.
Try this, taken straight from the report’s key findings on Britain:
“The 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer during 2004-2009 was 81%, up from 75% during 1997-2002, but still lower than the OECD average of 84%. For cervical cancer, it was 59%, also lower than the OECD average of 66%.
“And for colorectal cancer, the 5-year relative survival rate in the UK during 2004-2009 was 54% for females and 53% for males, compared with an OECD average of 62% for females and 60% for males.”
Cancer survival rates are now better in the Czech Republic and Slovenia than in Britain.
One might have thought that these appalling figures would give British politicians pause for thought. If an insurance based system of the kind adopted by many countries in Europe is providing better outcomes than the bureaucratic, state-dominated NHS surely it must have crossed somebody’s mind that it might be worth considering a radical change of course.
Not a bit of it.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/669/the_obstinacy_of_a_crumbling_castroism
The obstinacy of a crumbling Castroism
Meaningless economic “readjustments” will be remembered, not as the initiators of the rejuvenation of the Cuban economy, but rather, as the final rattles of one of the few remaining relics of communism
During the life of a dictatorship, there are times at which the instinct of survival pushes its leaders to carry out a profound reform of the manner in which it operates. This often happens when the despot who set it up passes away or, by the force of health or age, is about to do so.
The reform process is not free of uncertainties since nothing and no one can possibly guarantee the ruling clique that the people will not seize the occasion to push for a full-fledged regime change and for the instauration of a democratic system. This is the reason why dictatorships avoid carrying out such an exercise until the circumstances (economic malaise, people’s mobilization and/or international pressure) make it impossible to continue to procrastinate.
China is a conspicuous example of a dictatorship that managed to survive to the demise of its founder. It did so by undertaking a radical change in the economic domain, putting in place a centralized, State capitalism (labelled “market socialism”) under the un-Marxian slogan “To get rich is glorious”, while keeping at the same time the political rigidity typical of totalitarian systems.
http://melaniephillips.com/egypt-between-the-devil-and-the-deep-blue-sea
Egypt: between the devil and the deep blue sea
“But sentimentalised democracy – elections without the prior heavy lifting of the establishment of free institutions – is the route not to freedom but yet more abuses of power. And the brutal fact is that if the army council departs the Egyptian stage, the Islamists will take power – and then the outcome will not just be a snuffing out of human rights for the Egyptians but a whole new ballgame of threat for the west.”
The violence in Egypt has continued to escalate as the demonstrators out on the streets insist that the army council step down immediately. A brief truce brokered by clerics earlier today appears to have collapsed. There is no doubt that Egypt’s military regime has behaved, and will continue to behave, with great brutality. But as I wrote here two days ago, Egypt is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Bad as the military regime may be, the most likely alternative of a Muslim Brotherhood regime would be worse. The army cracks down on dissent, which is bad enough; the Islamists, however, crack down on the freedom just to be.
http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2011/11/24/explosion-in-lebanon-destroys-hizbullah-facility-said-to-contain-missiles/
NICOSIA — A major munitions warehouse of the Iranian-sponsored
Hizbullah has been destroyed.
Lebanese security sources said a Hizbullah arsenal outside the southern
port city of Tyre was blown up on Nov. 23. The sources said the
facility was believed to contain hundreds of missiles and rockets for the
Hizbullah military.
“Given these findings, the explosion was most likely caused by a mine or
a cluster bomb,” the Lebanese Army said on Nov. 23.
Hizbullah responded quickly to the blast and sealed off the Tyre-area
village of Sidiqin. Lebanese security forces and United Nations
peacekeepers stood hundreds of meters away and watched the Hizbullah
cleanup. Later, Hizbullah denied that its facility was bombed.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2609/inspire-magazine-open-source-jihad
The recent arrest of Jose Pimentel, a 27-year-old convert to Islam who was allegedly planning to detonate an explosive device in New York, underscores the ongoing danger posed by so-called “lone wolf” terrorists. Pimentel, busy preparing a bomb at the time of his arrest according to prosecutors, is alleged to have wanted to kill American troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. The real significance of his plot, however, lies in the method he was using.
Pimentel is believed to have read Inspire magazine, a quarterly publication that is produced in English by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and is aimed at Muslims living in the West. The magazine was largely put together by Samir Khan, an American of Pakistani ethnic origin, who grew up in Queens, New York. He left the United States in 2009 to join al-Qaeda in Yemen where he teamed up with another American, the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Although both were killed earlier this year in a drone strike, their destructive legacy lives on in Inspire magazine. Its primary aim Is to incite Muslims in the West to support al-Qaeda by appealing to them directly, in terms they can relate to. This is where Inspire’s American propagandists come in useful – they are able to sell their ideas in a language and style that resonates with many young Muslims in the West. Notably, rather than telling them to migrate to Yemen, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, each edition of the magazine aims to inspire self-starting “lone wolves.”
The overall approach of Inspire is simple: First, it primes sympathetic Muslims with anti-Western anger; then it provides theological arguments which legitimize terrorism — before it finally offers detailed technical instructions on how to commit acts of terrorism.
This strategy is something the group calls “Open Source Jihad,” which it defines as:
A resource manual for those who loath the tyrants; includes bomb making techniques, security measures, guerrilla tactics, weapons training and all other jihad related activities…the open source jihad is America’s worst nightmare. It allows Muslims to train at home instead of risking a dangerous travel abroad.
LIBYA’S MUSLIM BROTHERS EMERGE FROM THE SHADOWS “MODERATE ISLAM” IS HARSH SHARIA WITH LIPSTICK…..RSK http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=38699&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=430c52119b7f59edc746709b23d85b74 Political parties continue to multiply in Libya, but few are so well prepared and organized as the National Gathering for Freedom, Justice and Development (NGFJD), the political front of Libya’s long-repressed Muslim Brotherhood and associated Libyan Islamists. Led by Shaykh […]
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2011/11/j-street-founder-seeks-to-redefine-pro-israel.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FN4OYM51%2Fright_truth+%28Right+Truth%29
J is for Jekyll and Hyde – the truth about J Street By Tabitha Korol
The Cleveland Jewish Jews recently reported that Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder of J Street, was disappointed with the unenthusiastic welcome from the rabbis of the Cleveland Board of Rabbis, and that local congregations had not extended him invitations to speak at their congregations. Although he paints his J Street as being pro-Israel, it seems that more people are beginning to judge him by his deeds, not rhetoric. While his words insist that J Street is the home for American Jewry who want peace for Israel, his actions are disturbing.
Ben-Ami ignores 14 centuries of Islam’s violent history of conquest over Jews, Christians, and other civilizations in the Middle East. Beginning with Muhammad’s expectation that Jews and Christians would accept him as a prophet, and his rejection by both in Mecca and Medinah, Muhammad’s position changed to uncompromising hostility and justification for brutality, and his adherents follow his examples to the letter.
There is nothing to suggest that there has been a revision of the Koran to dictate otherwise. If anything, a careful study of events worldwide substantiates that the Giant has awakened, and the goal is complete Islamization. So why would Ben-Ami assume that Israel could suddenly be looked upon with favor by the Muslims if Israel were to relinquish one more Israeli neighborhood to the Arabs?
Why would Ben-Ami imagine that Mahmoud Abbas’s declaration to never accept the sovereign Jewish Nation in the region was reversible? And why would Ben-Ami expect that Abbas’s vow to use a new Palestinian state to wage war against the diminished Israeli state could be overturned if Israel would only give up more land?
The answer is simple. He doesn’t assume; he doesn’t imagine, and he doesn’t expect. He knows his stance is antithetical to peace between the Arabs and the Jews, but he is a Jewish stealth jihadist. Whatever his motive, he knows his words and actions could cost the Jews their homeland.
It takes only one glance at the map to understand that a two-state solution isn’t viable, with Israel having to cede more land from her one/one-thousandth fraction of the Middle East to the Muslims who occupy the remaining 999. With each passing day, more threats and plans for Israel’s destruction emanate from the Palestinian-Arab territories. Now we hear that thousands of jihadists (perhaps a million) will march into Jerusalem and claim it for their own, and will Ben-Ami agree that Israel should give up her capital of 4,000 years “for peace” to a people who only invented themselves in 1967? Would he, in fact, delight in leading the peaceful onslaught?
History proves that Arabs have always wrought violence against the Jewish and Christian people, since their beginning. Jihad is a permanent state of war, always in existence among the Arabs, first as tribal wars – rivalry that created a permanent state of instability and unrest. Jihad shifted the focus of attention from the tribes to the outside world as religious zeal and so that they could sustain themselves economically from the booty. Elements from Judaism (although Judaism was not a missionary religion) and Christianity (that was not a redemptive or state religion at its outset) provided Islam with a dual nature, a defensive-offensive character that permanently declared war against the world. It became a politico-religious mission that conditioned the Islamic attitude as a conquering nation, with a demand for perseverance, endurance, and steadfastness, until “the vanquished become brethren of their conquerors.”
The day after Israel became a Jewish State, seven Arab armies declared war and fought the fledgling state as their permanent obligation to impose its rule upon the non-believers. When there was no housing construction, there was Arab violence; when there was housing construction, there was a Arab violence. Surrounding circumstances do not affect Islamic violence. Ben-Ami and his likeminded followers do not appear to recognize that the same imposition is occurring in America and, indeed, throughout the world.
Ben-Ami appears to be either disingenuous or oblivious to the Koran’s directives of having anything but an Islamic state. When I last challenged his statements, he was astounded that I called him a turncoat, but it happened to be the most appropriate term I could find.
