The Death of a Palestinian Nazi — on The Glazov Gang
by Jamie Glazov
The meaning of Israel’s successful assassination of Ahmed al-Ja’abari, the head of Hamas’ military wing.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/why-arent-conservatives-cool-on-the-glazov-gang/
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1112/prager112012.php3?printer_friendly
The way in which the New York Times reports good vs. evil is one of the most important stories of our time.
Take the war between Israel and Hamas that is taking place right now.
This war is as morally clear as wars get. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating the Jewish state. It runs a theocratic totalitarian state in Gaza, with no individual liberty and no freedom of speech or press. In a nutshell, Hamas is a violent, fascist organization.
Israel, meanwhile, is one the world’s most humane states, not to mention a democracy that is so tolerant that Arab members of its parliament are free to express admiration for Hamas.
Over the past decade, Hamas had launched thousands of rockets into Israel with one aim: to kill and maim as many Israeli citizens as possible — Israelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Finally, Israel responded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief organizer of Hamas violence, the Hamas “military commander” as he was known among Palestinians.
The next day, three more Israelis were killed by rockets.
Then Hamas targeted Tel Aviv, Israel’s most densely populated region, and Israel shelled Hamas rocket launching sites.
In other words, an evil entity made war on a peaceful, decent entity, and the latter responded.
How has the New York Times reported this?
On Friday, on its front page, the Times featured two three-column wide photos. The top one was of Gaza Muslim mourners alongside the dead body of al-Jabari. The photo below was of Israeli Jews mourning alongside the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.
What possible reason could there be for the New York Times to give identical space to these two pictures? One of the dead, after all, was a murderer, and the other was one of his victims.
The most plausible reason is that the Times wanted to depict through pictures a sort of moral equivalence: Look, sophisticated Times readers, virtually identical scenes of death and mourning on both sides of the conflict. How tragic.
If one had no idea what had triggered this war, one would read and see the Times coverage and conclude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.
From: Jerusalem Diaries: A visit to Ashkelon and Ashdod and the surrounding areas brought home the price being paid by Israelis living in southern Israel who are under the continuing Hamas bombardment. The level of preparedness and ability to withstand the terror onslaught is impressive. The physical, economic and psychological damage is palpable and in […]
HAT TIP: MY E-PAL NURIT GREENGER BROGHT THIS COLUMN TO MY ATTENTION….RSK
http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=317453
You Cannot Speak With Allah
In light of what is happening in our world today, here is an article written in 1955, which is a photograph of reality and prophecy. Then there was no PLO, no Al Qaeda or “radical Islam” …there was and there is Islam, which has not changed since and will never change. Attaching names and attempts to divide the Moslems to moderates and extremists simply humorizing the Muslims! And that Dr. Azriel Carlebach analyzed with clarity and sharpness and incredible insight of the reality and what the future holds in store. No further word is necessary.
Dr. Azriel Carlebach (7 November 1909-12 February 1956) was a journalist and publicist in the time of the Yishuv, prior to the establishment of Israel, and in the early days of the state of Israel and served as the editor of the newspaper Yediot Aharonot and later founder and was the first editor of the newspaper Ma’ariv.
Article by Dr. Azriel Carlebach. Published in the newspaper “Ma’ariv” on 7 October 1955
“It is not the matter of borders the source of the conflict between us and the Arabs, rather the Islamic psychology. The Arabs are the sons of Islam, and with it, along the concept of the worldview, you cannot talk. With Islam you do not live next door in peace.”
Clear and simple truth is that between the Moslem world and the culture of the Western world there is not one common word, and there was not and could not be any understanding. This does not aim at religion, that any religion can be good or bad, according to what its believers will fulfill or overlook its moral principles. It means the influence of Islam on the society life, the sense of the world and the relationships with all other people.
… Fifty – sixty generations one after another were educated in Islam to rape the human nature – not to use the power of thinking, no tot want individual rights, not to lust, not to demand, not to stand tall. In the Moslem world the dim will rules, the dark, the unexplained of Allah. A pedantic and capricious ruler, hidden and sickening …this is the core of the Islam religion – not to ask. A person undertakes this faith in what he says: Allah el Allah”, not in what he is convinced from an idea, but in what he accepts for himself as a tyrant.
Such faith by its very nature cannot be spread through intellectual persuasion or supreme moral, this is the work of the mind and body – and can only be distributed by physical force. And therefore they need to wage a constant holy war against the “non-believers” and bring them into the fold of the right faith with the force of the sword of el-Islam-Allah that loves blood … Never there is greater danger in itself, but the finger on the trigger. And a small bomb in the hands of one madman can destroy an entire philosophers’ Community.
The danger for the West that is buried in Islam is vastly greater than that of Communism. Because within the Communist religion there are multiple educated nucleus than within the Muslim religion. With Communism one can talk about the basics of give and take, because of its materialism it considers also reality, measuring forces, formulating requirements, considers proposals according to feasibility.
All these data do not exist in Islam. Muslims had never agreed on anything, whatever it is, even among themselves … and they cannot materialize anything – not only in the matters concerning Israel; the entire mighty Muslim world could not make an agreement on one common postage stamp. Their reactions – on anything – have no relevance to common sense. They are all emotional lacking calculation, transient, baseless … with all you can talk “business”, even with the devil, but not with Allah …
