Displaying the most recent of 90433 posts written by

Ruth King

JORDAN’S NEXT LEADER? AND NOW THE TERRORIST NEXT DOOR: MUDAR ZAHRAN…..SEE NOTE PLEASE

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3413/jordan-next-leader

NONE OF THIS….REPEAT, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WERE IT NOT FOR CAMP DAVID ACCORDS AND OSLO SURRENDER….WHILE JUDEA AND SAMARIA WERE BOTH CAREFULLY CONTROLLED BY THE LATE KING HUSSEIN AND ISRAEL ….THEY HAD EACH OTHER’S BACK…..BY DECLARING A WILLINGNESS TO VACATE THE ISRAELIS ENABLED THE RISE OF THE PLO AND THE RATCHETING OF DEMANDS FROM THE LOCAL ARABS….RSK

Al-Rantisi claims in his article that “The US government and its intelligence services will support the Muslim Brotherhood goals of coming to power.” The Muslim Brotherhood dismissed Al-Rantisi’s claims and sued him for damages. Nonetheless, Al-Rantisi stick by the claims he had made when questioned by Al Arabiyya.

It might be helpful now to start wondering what sort of ideas Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, and its leader, Controller General SheikhHamam Sai’d, will advance if they seize power in Jordan — possibly with the blessing and encouragement of the United States.

Sheikh Sai’d, of Palestinian origin, was elected to the leadership if Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood in 2008 by its hardline faction. They support a partnership with Hamas and the overthrow of Middle Eastern leaders who side with the United States.

AL HA’ARETZ AND GIDEON LEVY ….THEIR LIBEL OF ISRAEL: BEN DROR YEMINI…PLEASE READ IT ALL

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/

urvey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime,” the headline in Haaretz screamed earlier this week. If that were true, it indeed would have been a worrying development. But the information below will demonstrate that the article contains some of the most blatant anti-Israel lies published in recent years. And Gideon Levy, the one and only – who is read more in English than in Hebrew — was awarded the task of explaining the survey to the whole wide world.

The result? Israel is apparently not merely on the way to becoming South Africa. It has already turned into South Africa. The lie has been making waves the world over, spreading like wildfire. The goal has been achieved.

It’s not easy to chase down a lie that has already gained traction worldwide. But it seems there is no escaping the attempt, at least. So we’ll bring the facts — just the facts — and let them speak for themselves. Hopefully, someone is listening.
Gideon A and Gideon B

Gideon Levy’s name graces the byline of the main article, which included the survey results. The same Gideon Levy also wrote the accompanying commentary article. But Levy was probably so elated, that he did not even notice that he implicates himself in lies.

According to the survey, 53 percent of Israelis are not opposed to having an Arab neighbor. That much is clear. But when Gideon Levy passes from reporting to overt incitement masquerading as “interpretation,” he writes that “the majority doesn’t want… Arab neighbors.” Could it be that the second Gideon Levy didn’t properly read what was written by the first Gideon Levy?

Moving on: According to the survey, 33% of Israelis support revoking the voting rights of Israeli Arabs. That’s a grave figure in and of itself. But when it comes to the “interpretation,” Levy writes that “the majority doesn’t want Arabs to vote for the Knesset.” Again, Levy the interpreter seems not to have read Levy the reporter. Is he capable of formulating a sentence that includes only the truth? And where in the hell is his editor? Was there not a single editor who could properly parse the results of the survey?

But then again, the lies were designed to lend Levy the justification for his political conclusion; namely, that the possibility of a Jewish and democratic state of Israel has expired. In the past, I wrote that Gideon Levy is “Baron of the Falsehood Industry.” Levy insists on providing more and more evidence to this effect.
Extraordinary deductive logic

According to the survey, 69% of Israelis oppose the granting of voting rights to Palestinian Arabs if the territories are annexed.

Sounds scary.

The real reason that most Israelis oppose the annexation of the territories, however, is, most likely, that they would like to avoid a bi-national state or the risk of an apartheid one. But Haaretz pulled off an extraordinary feet of deductive logic, stating that most Israelis support apartheid. It’s like a survey indicating that most Israelis are opposed to violence — but that if they were to be attacked by a mugger, they would react violently – breeding a report with the title “Most Israelis support violence.” This is the story of the Haaretz headline. It’s based on a purely hypothetical, or, more precisely, manipulative situation.
Good neighbors

Let’s stay briefly with the issue of neighbors. Many surveys in Western countries show that white indigenous people are not enthusiastic about foreigner neighbors. Forty-two percent of the French, according to one survey, think of the Muslim presence as a “threat,” 68% think Muslims do not integrate, and 61% blame the Muslims themselves for their supposed failure to integrate. Similar results were observed in each and every country where this kind of survey was carried out.

That does not make all Europeans racists. It indicates that there are concerns, even if they aren’t always justified. The difference between Israel and other Western countries is that Israel is in the throes of a conflict. Jewish Israelis are faced with a barrage of Islamic incitement; and yet, most are not opposed to having an Arab neighbor, and support the political rights of the Arabs, even according to the results of this distorted survey.

This is actually a badge of honor for the average Israeli.
Michael Ben-Ari — average Israeli?

According to the survey, 47% of Israelis support a population transfer of Israeli Arabs. That’s interesting. Historically, Israel has had only one party that supported a population transfer, and even then only on the condition that it would be consensual. That party won only three seats in the Knesset.

How could the hand of Levy’s editor not tremble? Wasn’t he aware of the facts?

Currently, there isn’t a single political party in Israel that supports apartheid. One right-wing party, which won three seats, has a member who succeeded to be elected despite the fact that his ideology is reminiscent of Kahanism. He is the only current Knesset member of whom it might be said that he supports a population transfer. One of 120.

According to Haaretz, any party to run on a platform of population transfer and apartheid would win an automatic majority of seats in Knesset.

In view of the circumstances, wherein Hamas is the largest party in the territories, and types like Azmi Bishara, Raed Salah and Haneen Zoabi are the loudest speakers for the Palestinian Arabs, the Jewish population has also produced some radical, fringe elements. We must oppose them. But most Israelis reveal an amazing maturity, and consistently vote for parties that support equal rights for Israeli Arabs.
Bothered by inequality

A survey conducted by the “SIKUY” association, which no one can accuse of harboring any right-wing inclinations, found that “60% of [Israeli] Jews believe that promoting the equality of Arab citizens is in the interest of the state.” Sixty percent! In addition, the survey found that “53% of the Jewish population in Israel is bothered by the inequality of Israeli Arabs,” and that “40% of Jews are willing to pay a personal price in order to achieve the goal of civil equality in Israel.” Indeed, a personal price for equality, for a sense of partnership.

This survey was more comprehensive and thorough than the survey ordered by a political organization that probably marked its goal on advance.
The other leftists

A survey conducted by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies just last year found that 48% of the Jews in Israel support (vs. 43% who oppose) a “package deal,” including a mobilization of citizenry and government, to improve the situation of the Israeli Arabs within the framework of “inclusive citizenship.” But this survey received no front-page headlines.

The survey was much more serious and far more thoughtful, and its academic staff comprised mostly leftists. Not the kind of leftists that characterize Haaretz, but the kind that want to investigate, to know, to propose a framework to improve the current situation, which indeed merits improvement.
Intifada and equality

A multi-year survey reveals a link between the political situation and support for equality; in 1985, only 44% supported equality; in 1999, 73% supported equality; in 2003, only 47% supported equality; and in 2007, 55% supported equality. That is, since 1985, only once, at the height of the intifada in 2003, were supporters of equality not in the majority.

The survey also indicates that if you take away the hostility stemming from the conflict, the citizens of Israel are characterized by support for civil equality far more than they can be characterized as apartheid supporters.
Refuting reality

The Arabs of Israel, according to all sane and sensible measures, enjoy greater civil rights — far greater — than the population of any other country in the Middle East.

Just recently, a leading Arab website, Arab News, published an article by Abdoltif Al-Milham showing that reality. This important article, which attempted, among other things, to counter anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic falsehoods about Israel as an apartheid state, also received prominent billing in the second-largest Arab channel, Al Arabiya. But not to worry: Even if the world occasionally receives glimmers of the truth, Haaretz takes care to return the lies to center-stage. It will readily refute the reality with the help of a dubious survey that the paper fell on like a trophy.

ALYSSA LAPPEN REVIEWS “SHARIA VS. FREEDOM” BY ANDREW BOSTOM

http://pjmedia.com/blog/sharia-states-totalitarian-to-the-core/?print=1 In less than two weeks, American voters must decide whether to reelect or to boot the current White House occupant. Dr. Andrew Bostom’s monumental new work, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism [1], could not have come at a more fateful hour. This brilliant scholarship, while designed as an overarching analysis, also […]

Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’ — ‘Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=3f6fb1abbc&e=552053f981 Nobel Committee sets Mann straight: ‘[Mann] has taken diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma’ [Climate Depot note: The UN IPCC added text, not Mann] ‘[Mann] did not receive any personal certificate’ — Geir Lundestad, Dir. Prof. for The Norwegian Nobel Inst.: […]

“Sharia Versus Freedom” Cameo Appearance on Lou Dobb’s Tonight Libya Discussion (10/25/12)

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/26/sharia-versus-freedom-cameo-appearance-on-lou-dobbs-tonight-libya-discussion-102512/ Last evening’s (10/25/12) Lou Dobb’s Tonight featured a very frank and illuminating analysis of the morally reprehensible Benghazi fiasco by former Ambassador John Bolton, and my colleague, Andrew C. McCarthy. At the end of the candid discussion, my book, Sharia Versus Freedom, made an inadvertent, yet apposite “cameo appearance,” courtesy of Mr. Dobb’s, who […]

CAROLINE GLICK: THE LIMITS OF AMERICAN POWER

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/10/the-limits-of-american-power.php?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=The+limits+of+American+power&utm_campaign=20121026_m114132187_The+limits+of+American+power&utm_term=Continue+reading___ Monday’s US presidential debate on foreign policy came and went. And we are none the wiser for it. Not surprisingly, at the height of the campaign season, neither US President Barack Obama nor his Republican challenger Gov. Mitt Romney was interested in revealing his plans for the next four years. But from what was […]

DIANA WEST: OBAMA’S JIHAD ALLIANCE

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2294/Obamas-Jihad-Alliance.aspx This Week’s Syndicated Column: A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column addressing the national scandal that investigation into the security failures and lies surrounding Benghazi-gate must also expose. This even larger scandal concerns the fact that throughout the revolutionary cycle known as Arab Spring, the Obama administration threw in Uncle Sam’s lot […]

JEFFREY LORD: OBAMA KNEW

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/25/obama-knew Did ideological soft spot for Sharia keep U.S government from protecting Benghazi consulate? Obama knew. Say again, Obama knew. So. The question. If what happened in Benghazi wasn’t incompetence — was it ideology? Did Sharia kill Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and two Navy SEALs? And is Hillary Clinton’s insistence yesterday […]

ANDREW McCARTHY: SHARIA ILLED AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/10/26/sharia-killed-ambassador-chris-stevens/ The headline on this post could just be a statement of fact, derived from an obvious truth, albeit one that our willfully blind government refuses to assimilate despite years of anti-American atrocities. Under the supremacist interpretation of sharia — Islam’s totalitarian societal system — that is regnant in the Middle East, non-Muslim Westerners who […]

RUTHIE BLUM: IT’S ALL ABOUT IRAN

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2758

It’s all about Iran

The Eid el-Adha holiday began Thursday. This is the “Feast of the Sacrifice” during which Muslims make their annual hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prepared and aired a televised message to the global flock over which he claims patronage.

As is his wont, Khamenei took the opportunity to infuse his religious sermon with politics and radical ideology. And due to the abundance of current events relevant to the chief mullah and his “congregants,” he had more to stew and spew about than usual.

Let us not forget that Tehran is monitoring the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election with as much nail-biting anxiety as the rest of us. Tehran is not happy about the prospect of a changing of the guard in Washington on November 6. Indeed, if there’s one thing the Islamic republic knows, it is that U.S. President Barack Obama has been the best person to have in the White House since Jimmy Carter. While Carter sat by and let Iran fall into the hands of the mullahs in 1979, Obama has stood at attention as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime marches full-force forward with its nuclear program.

This is not to say that Khamenei has developed any fondness for the United States during the past four years. On the contrary, just as his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini loathed Carter for being both American and weak, so, too, does Khamenei harbor nothing but hatred and contempt for Obama. This is particularly the case as he watches the U.S. president squirm over getting caught lying about his response to last month’s murder of four Americans, among them the ambassador, at the consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of September 11. It is precisely Obama’s kind of pathetic posturing on behalf of the Islamic world, however, that serves Khamenei’s interests.

That is why he fears a Mitt Romney victory. He figures that the Republican contender would be more likely to get in the way of his grand plan for the Middle East (and beyond, eventually). He also worries that a Romney administration would be less inclined than the incumbent crew to put “daylight” between America and Israel. Such a possibility spells danger for him and his nukes. It also bodes ill for his alliances with the Arab Spring radicals whom he already controls, and those — such as in Syria —whom he is trying to defeat.