Sunday, March 02, 2008

More demands from Islam:

Sunday, August 12, 2007

A Peculiar People


Look when this was written – 1968! Do you remember Eric Hoffer? He was a longshoreman turned social philosopher. Not Jewish. He died in 1983, aged 81, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Here is one of his columns from 1968.

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION by Eric Hoffer (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace .

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

Friday, October 27, 2006

It seems the BBC has put it's foot in it again...

BBC seeks to suppress bias report

Network asks High Court to overturn decision that it publishes report into bias in coverage of Middle East conflict

Hagit Klaiman
Published: 10.24.06, 15:50

LONDON - What is keeping the BBC, which is ready to invest intense efforts and money, from publishing a report it commissioned to investigate whether its reporting is biased against Israel?

This question is being asked in Britain after a report about the BBC's petition to the High Court demanding the right to keep a report about its broadcasting secret. The report was commissioned by the BBC in 2003 and 2004.

In 2003, Israel complained about the broadcaster's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accusing the BBC of being biased against Israel.

Biased Media

Among other things Israel condemned the BBC's refusal to call Palestinian suicide bombers "terrorists". The crisis reached a nadir when Israel banned diplomats and government officials from speaking with the broadcaster over its release of a documentary claiming that Israel has numerous weapons of mass destruction.

In 2004, the BBC decided to appoint editorial advisor Malcolm Balen to pile a report about the organization's coverage of the Middle East conflict.

The BBC refused to publish the full report although acknowledged that its reporting was biased against Israel. Ynet has a document detailing the legal saga between the BBC and Attorney Steven Sugar, who filed a court petition demanding the BBC release the report.

The publicly-funded report, which comprises 20,000 words, was withheld by the Information Commission.

Sugar told Ynet that his motivation was his belief that the public is entitled to have the full picture, especially when it comes to the complicated and entangled Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He admitted that he has not conducted his own study on the subject but he said he trusts other studies that showed the BBC's coverage of the conflict is biased.

He noted Trevor Assersson of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs who found that the BBC's coverage of the conflict is biased and that the organization breaches all the norms of journalism required of a news body.

In 2005 the Freedom of Information act was passed in Britain. Sugar turned to the BBC with a request to have access to the report under the Act. He was surprised to be turned down.

He was told that his request was turned down because the BBC is not obliged to publish the report despite it being a public body.

Sugar then turned to the Information Commission which refused his request and sided with the BBC.

Sugar was determined and turned took the case to court. The court ruled that the BBC should make the report available to the public.

The BBC decided to appeal the decision at the High Court.

Sugar: BBC trying to hide something

Sugar vowed to continue the struggle against the BBC. He told Ynet he is not representing any social body but he believes that it is the tax-paying public's right to know whether in 2003 and 2004 the BBC covered the Middle East conflict in a biased way.

He said he believes that Balen is a neutral and objective editor and that he greatly appreciates his hard work in penning the report.

He said Balen will not object to the publication of the report but he estimates that the BBC would argue that the public has no right to know what an independent editor advised the broadcaster to do.

Sugar said what the BBC is trying to cover up is really important. He said it was after Balen's report that the BBC decided to appoint Jeremy Bowen as Middle East Editor despite the spirit of correspondent Orla Guerin who left Israel in response.

Sugar said he has noticed a change in the BBC's coverage of Israel which he links to the Balen report.

Ynet turned to the BBC for a response about why they are reluctant to withhold the report. A BBC spokeswoman said: "We will be appealing the decision of the Information Tribunal. This case has wider implications relating to the way that the Freedom of Information Act applies to public broadcasters.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

BBC admits it's being ruled by the infamous 'M25 Ring' - the extreme left-left wingers, the gays & the politically motivated minorities. It admits that in a fact it does not represent the majority of the UK public! Is anyone surprised?

BBC admits: We are biased on religion & politics

Internal corporation memo on ‘impartiality’ summit leaked to British media exposes truth on BBC bias

Hagit Klaiman
Published: 10.23.06, 16:10

LONDON – The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror.
Following a diplomatic incident with Israel, the BBC appointed an editor known for his objective reporting, however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same.

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

Okay to trash Bible, not Quran

A truly shocking revelation to come out of the summit was expected to invoke a storm in Britain, which has already reached the boiling point with regards to the treatment of Muslims and the issue of the veil.

For the purpose of illustration, the executives were given a scenario in which Jewish Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen [Ali G., Borat] would participate in a program titled ‘Room 101’, a studio program where guests would be asked for their opinions on different issues, and allowed to symbolically throw things they hated in a garbage bin.

The executives were asked what they would do if Cohen decided to throw ‘Kosher food’, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible, and the Quran in the garbage bin.

The executives said they would allow everything to be thrown in the garbage bin, save the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community.

According to the ‘Washington Times’, the BBC also reportedly revealed that its executives favored interviewing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

Among other issues raised in the summit was the question of whether or not veiled women should be allowed to read the news. The BBC’s diversity editor said that since news anchors were allowed to wear crosses, any news anchor should be permitted to wear anything they wished, including the veil.

One senior BBC executive admitted to the ‘Daily Express’, "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

Friday, October 20, 2006


Fury as Berlin Opera Cancels Performance

Berlin's Deutsche Oper opera house is under fire for cancelling a controversial production of a Mozart opera which shows the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha. Politicians have condemned the cancellation as self-censorship and cowardice.

The German government accused a Berlin opera house of "self-censorship" on Tuesday for cancelling performances of a Mozart opera because it was concerned about attacks by Islamists.

The Deutsche Oper, one of Berlin's three opera houses, was due to show a controversial production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" by director Hans Neuenfels in which the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha are placed on four chairs.

Deutsche Opera manager Kirsten Harms pulled the opera, due be performed four times in November, after receiving a warning from police. "We got alerted by the police that all the press publicity surrounding the play would severely heighten the security risk to this opera," she told a news conference.

After its premiere at the Deutsche Oper in December 2003, the Neuenfels production prompted shouts of protest from the audience but reviewers interpreted it as a radical critique of religion and religious war. First performed in 1781, the opera set in ancient Greece after the Trojan War deals with human resistance to making sacrifices to the gods.

News of the cancellation drew strong criticism from the government and the main political parties. Culture Minister Bernd Neumann said: "If concern about possible protests already leads to self-censorship then the democratic culture of free speech is in danger."

The Berlin police department said it had analysed security risks resulting from the performance in light of the worldwide protests that followed the publication of Muhammad cartoons in Danish newspapers earlier this year.

"We told the opera that possible disturbances relating to the performance in its planned form couldn't be ruled out," the spokesman said.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
All Liberal leadership hopefuls 'anti-Israeli'

Prime Minister Stephen Harper waded further Thursday into the incendiary debate over Liberal leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff's charge that Israel has committed a "war crime" in Lebanon, blasting the entire Grit hopeful lineup for what he called their "anti-Israeli position."

When asked about the term "war crime" to describe Israel's action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Harper told reporters at a press conference on Thursday that he found the usage inappropriate, saying "I don't support that view."

But the prime minister went one further, taking a jab not only at Ignatieff, but the entire lineup of Liberal leadership hopefuls.

"This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken with virtually all of the candidates of the Liberal leadership, and I don't think it's helpful or useful."

But Ignatieff's leadership rivals may not agree with his choice of words.

"To use the phrase 'war crime,' I think, is most unwise," Bob Rae told CTV News on Wednesday.

Meanwhile fellow contender Joe Volpe characterized Ignatieff's comments as "a rookie error."

In an ironic twist, Ignatieff was attempting to explain a previous gaffe on the same subject when he dug himself into a deeper hole.

In an interview broadcast Sunday on Quebec talk show "Tout le monde en parle," Ignatieff apologized for telling the Toronto Star in August that he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli air strike that killed dozens of Lebanese civilians in the village of Qana on July 30.

"I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake and when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it," he said in French.

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that." Earlier in August, Ignatieff admitted that he made a "mistake" in his comments to the Star; and since then transcripts of his interview shows that he prefaced those comments by calling the Qana bombing a "tragedy" for the Lebanese people.

But the interview in Quebec on Sunday marks the first time he has characterized Israel's actions as a war crime.

Jewish leaders reacted angrily to Ignatieff's latest choice of words and demanded a retraction.

In an apparent effort to make amends, Ignatieff told reporters that while he is a friend of Israel he is a "critical friend of Israel."

He added that "where crimes were visited on Israeli civilians, they were visited on Lebanese civilians." But the damage appeared to be done. His comments highlighted divisions not only within his inner circle but within the Liberal party itself.

The co-chair of Ignatieff's Toronto campaign, Thornhill MP Susan Kadis, announced Wednesday that she was quitting over his remarks.

Kadis said she found his comments "troubling," given that Israel was defending itself in its conflict with Hezbollah.

Ignatieff so far has the support of nearly 30 per cent of delegates in the battle for the Liberal leadership, with the less than two months to go before the Nov. 28-Dec. 3 Liberal convention in Montreal.

Harper, who has been perceived as pro-Israeli, has come under fire himself for taking sides in the Mideast conflict.

The prime minister even made waves in international waters in September, when members of the Francophonie summit agreed to a compromise on a contentious resolution after Harper blocked the original proposal.

The original wording of the resolution recognized Lebanon's suffering in this summer's 34-day conflict, but not Israel's.

Harper took a strong stance against the Egyptian-proposed resolution, which most of the 72 members supported. He urged the organization to recognize the suffering of both nations.

After returning to the conference table to hammer out the wording of the resolution, the French-speaking states eventually agreed unanimously to support a compromise that called for the end of hostilities and a return to calm.

It appears, however, that Harper is mindful of the criticism levelled at his unequivocal support for Israel's offensive in Lebanon.

In August, the prime minister appointed a Muslim Liberal MP to be special adviser on South Asia and the Middle East, an appointment seemingly aimed at restoring his political fortunes among groups who say he has been too pro-Israel in his approach to the conflict.

Monday, October 09, 2006

A new important book by Professor Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" talks about the uselessness of all religious in the life's of people on earth; It also discuss the negative role religious have on people & states. You can find more information on Prof.Dawkins site & his amazon book is now on sale.

The God Delusion
Professor Richard Dawkins

Sanity In A World Of Madness
Review: Philip Hyland [Dublin, Ireland]

I first came across Richard Dawkins when I watched his two-part documentary for Channel 4, "The Root Of All Evil?", which this book is an expansion of, and it was one of the most joyous, exhilerating and liberating experiences of my life. I was already an atheist at that stage but I didn't really know why. Having such a logical counter argument, the facts, presented freed me from any lingering belief in a god or afterlife. After that I immersed myself in Dawkins' work so needless to say I was giddy like a child on Christmas Eve about the release of this book. It's everything, and more, then I could have hoped for. Dawkins provides an all encompassing rebuttal to any argument for God's existence, highlights the dangers of religion and provides an inspiring and mind-opening view of life without the belief in God. He does so in his usual manner. His arguments are water-tight, completely convinving, easily understood by anyone, humourous, inspiring and life changing.

It has been said, probably fairly, that with this book Dawkins will simply be preaching to the choir but I imagine that there are huge amounts of people out there who like me were confused atheists or are unsure about their beliefs. I would urge anyone who is unsure about their beliefs or hasn't given them much thought to seek out this book. It's hugely enjoyable and it will change how your life for the better.

Dawkins is right that the belief in God is a delusion however any believer who reads this masterpiece and persists in their belief afterwards will be suffering from full blown psychosis.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

And more about the British Muslim Community

Straw's veil comments spark anger

Jack Straw, the ex-foreign secretary, has angered Muslim groups by suggesting women who wear veils can make relations between communities more difficult.

He wrote in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that he feared "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult".

Asking women to consider showing the mouths and noses could lead to true "face-to-face" conversations with constituents, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".

He said he made sure he had a female colleague in the room when asking someone to show their mouth and nose - and his constituents had so far always agreed to do so.

'Different views'

Later Mr Straw, who has defended the right for women to wear headscarves, asked BBC Radio Lancashire: "Would those people who do wear the veil think about the implications for community relations?"

The remarks attracted an angry response from some organisations representing Muslims.

It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked BBC News 24: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

Rajnaara Akhtar, who chairs the organisation Protect-Hijab, suggested the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live.

And a political rival - Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes - questioned whether it was Mr Straw's place to question the way that members of the public dressed.

"I don't think it's the job for somebody who represents the whole community to say to somebody who comes through the door, 'Do you mind if you dress differently in order to talk to me?'," Mr Hughes said.

Oliver Letwin, the Conservatives' policy chief, told the BBC's Question Time programme that if women wanted to wear a veil they should do so. He described it as "dangerous" to suggest they should not be allowed to.

Labour chairman Hazel Blears said: "I do not think it would be the first thing that occurred to me but I think it's perfectly proper."

Dr Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain said individual Muslim women could choose to remove part of their veil. "Even within the Muslim community, the scholars have different views on this. "Our view is that if it is going to cause discomfort and that can be avoided then it can be done." Dr Abdullah added, however, that covering hair remained "obligatory" for Muslim women.

Mr Straw was home secretary from 1997 to 2001, and then foreign secretary until 2005, a period which included the build-up to, and invasion of, Iraq.
More discounts for the British Muslim Community:

A Muslim police officer was excused
duty guarding Israel's embassy
Met defends Muslim officer move

A Muslim police officer was excused duty guarding Israel's embassy for safety reasons, Scotland Yard has said. The Sun newspaper said the officer was reassigned on "moral grounds" as he objected to Israeli actions in Lebanon. The Diplomatic Protection Group officer, named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, had Lebanese relatives.

But Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said the move followed a risk assessment and was "not about political correctness". The decision to excuse the officer has been attacked by some former police officers and politicians, while being defended by groups representing officers.

Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair ordered an urgent review into the matter.

We're going down a very, very slippery slope if we then start having postings based on individual officers' conscience [Supt Dal Babu, Association of Muslim Police Officers]

Can the police say no?

Mr Stephenson said: "At the height of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict in August this year, the officer made his managers aware of his personal concerns which included that he had Lebanese family members." He said that following a risk assessment "and not because of the officer's personal views whatever they might have been", a temporary decision was made not to deploy Pc Basha to the Israeli embassy.

"Our priority is making sure that any officer we deploy can have their mind on the job and make sure they discharge effectively and efficiently. "That's what a risk assessment is about, it is not about political correctness and we do not allow officers to pick and choose their deployment on the basis of their personal views."

The Association of Muslim Police Officers said it had been a "welfare issue" not a political one - with the officer having a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife.

The association said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe". Superintendent Dal Babu, from the association, told BBC News Pc Basha was now back on diplomatic protection group duties and that "if an incident happens at the Israeli embassy he will deal with it". Supt Babu accepted that excusing officers from assignments because of moral beliefs would be unacceptable. "I think that we're going down a very, very slippery slope if we then start having postings based on individual officers' conscience," he said.

What we don't want is a situation where one particular section of the community is given special reasons for not performing duties because that will simply alienate the rest [Lord Mackenzie]

Monday, October 02, 2006

Dutchblog - Great web-blog by Dutch historian Bert de Bruin, who now lives in Israel and concluding his PhD. This is one of many good cartoons on his site..

Another great blog that I have found is 'Jewish Landlord'; This is one of the entries of the owner which I have found very interesting!

Talking With Abdul
Sunday, February 12, 2006

My father called me. He asked me to fix a leaking kitchen drain pipe in his apartment building on the northwest side of Chicago. I agreed to work on it that afternoon. I enjoyed plumbing jobs. They gave me a sense of satisfaction of a job well done, and they paid real good too.

I drove my van to the apartment building, arriving at about 1pm. I rang the doorbell to the apartment on the 1st floor. Vicki, a beautiful peurto rican woman, opened the door. I explained I was here to fix the leak. Her husband, Abdul let me inside.

I remembered seeing them before. I first met them when they came to see the apartment when it was for rent. I was painting it when they stopped by to look at it. I remember how quiet Abdul was. Almost too quiet.

I started working on the kitchen sink pipes. I removed them and started cutting new pipes to fit. Abdul sat down by the kitchen table. Vicki left and didn't come back while I was there.
As I worked, Abdul watched and surprisingly started to talk. At first his questions were about my father and what kind of business we had together. Abdul knew I was Jewish American. I wondered when the hatred would leak out of his mouth. Then the questions and talk moved to where he was from and what family he had.

Abdul told me he had a brother in Egypt, another brother in Kuiwait and a third brother in France. Abdul's parents lived in a Gaza refugee camp. Abdul left Gaza when he was in his early 20's and he never came back.

We started talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Abdul assured me he was Palestinian. I asked him why don't the Arabs want to live in peace? Israel's Arabs are the best educated, and have the highest living standards of all the Arab world. Why don't the Israeli Arabs live in peace with Jews the same way many ethnic groups do here in the US?

With a wave of the hand, and a smile, Abdul said, "We Arabs come from a long history of conquest and domination of Islam over all others. We cannot get used to living with dhimmis as equals."

What are dhimmis I asked? I already knew what they are, but I wanted him to tell me.

Abdul said, "dhimmis are slaves, second class people." He smiled big and said, "You Jews were dhimmi slaves in our lands for a thousand years. You Jews had to pay a tax to us Muslims. We simply can't tolerate dhimmi 'slave Jews' ruling over us Muslims. Israel's very existence is poison in our eyes."

As I worked on the pipes, I said to him, "we had to tolerate you Arabs, when you conquered Israel and built your mosques on our sacred Jewish Temple mount. Arabs let the land go to waste, and we Jews had to tolerate your people building Arab squater towns and ghettos on our sacred land. The Turks cut down all the trees in Israel, turning the land into desert."
Abdul countered by saying, "we Arabs came from the Philistines and have a deep connection to the land going back thousands of years."

That was too much for me to stand. I kept working, but said, "Oh really? If you have a deep history in the land of Israel, then tell me what are the names of any Philistine kings, or any Philistine history? Can you show me pictures or books of any coins, any stamps or any kind of proof that you Arabs had any history in the land of Israel? Or is it that you Arabs came as conquerers from Arabia and have no history in Israel?"

Abdul was silent. But not for long. Ignoring my questions, he said, "We want what is our land. We will not stand to live under the Jews. Its our Arab land. We conquered it and we own it. Our mosques stand as witness to it being our land."

Working faster, I said, "your mosques stand as witness to your conquest of the land of Israel. Not ownership of it. Arabs settled into the land in the last 100 years. Before that, there was very few inhabitants in the land of Israel. There was mostly poor Jews and various other peoples scattered around the land. Never did any of the over 20 conquerers ever establish an independent country there. Only the Jews established 2 independent commonwealths of Israel. Jews have never left the land, even though the land of Israel was conquered over 20 times in the last 3000 years. Only the Jews have a 4000 year old history in the land of Israel. Only the Jews have kings, prophets, 2 great Temples, holidays and holy bible stories of us Jews living on the land of Israel. For 4000 years, since the time of Abraham, Jews have always returned to Israel. No matter how many times we were killed, enslaved and deported, we Jews always returned back to the land of Israel."

I continued talking as I finished the job. "You've yet to name me one Palistinian king, one Palistinian prophet, one Palistine story from the bible. Could it be that you have no history, no stories to tell of your history in the land of Israel? Could it be that your attachment to the land is because Jews love it so? Could it be that you've been taught lies to claim my land, my Israel, when you have no right to it?"

Again Abdul was silent. There was nothing for him to say. He had not imagined that a 'Jew slave' would talk back to an Arab. Abdul had nothing to say to me. I finished the job and left.

On the way out, I told him, "Now the tables are turned. Jews are the landlords. You live here as our tenant. Jews owns this building. Jews own this land. Jews set the rules. We Jews are the landlords. Be respectful. We will let you live here if you pay the rent on the 1st of each month. If not, then we will have to evict you."

The same applies to Israel. Truth cannot be argued with. The holy bible tells of all our Jewish stories concerning the land of Israel. Our Jewish holidays are woven around the land of Israel and its events. When Israelis stand up as the true landlords of the land of Israel that we are, then the Arabs will have nothing to say.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Dr. Wafa Sultan: Brave Arab lady!

Dr. Sultan is an Arab-American Psychologist originated in Syria. She is a voice of reason and truth in the world. She says it like it is! These video clips are taken from Al Jazeera - the famous Arab News broadcaser - and shows that there are logical voices in the Arab world.

Saturday, September 30, 2006

That's another important book by a former PLO self-proclaimed terrorist Walid Shoebat; The book is called "Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Rise of Islam" and is quite strong in the way is explains the source of terrorism and the brainwashing of Arab children to hate whatever which is not them.

Why I Left Jihad:
The Root of Terrorism and the
Return of Radical Islam

Walid Shoebat

Brutally honest.
A former terrorist speaks

Review of the book by
M D Roberts

Much of this extremely thorough and well written study is written from an autobiographical perspective, describing in some considerable detail the personal experiences and faith of the author, together with an often disturbing insight into the ongoing situation in the Middle East. Particular attention being paid to the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict.

The writer describes himself at the outset as having been born in Bethlehem of Judea, Israel. The significance of this precise statement emanates from the text as the reader is confronted with the author's experiences and personal faith, first as a devout Muslim and then as a born again Christian.

The source pulls no punches as he declares himself to be a former Palestinian Liberation Organisation terrorist who has been imprisoned for his participation in acts of incitement and violence against Israel.

It is difficult to remain unmoved when confronted with the account of how, from childhood, the hatred of Jews is described as having been his "education" and how he grew up believing that it was a righteous thing to hate and kill Jews.

The book describes how Walid's life was turned upside down, when through his studies, he discovered that "..everything that he had been taught about the Jews was a lie..."

The context surrounding this profound change of heart/mind, and what is cited as an "addiction of hate", presents the reader with a series of events encompassing Walid's attempt to convert his wife to Islam.

The book narrates how his wife refused to accept the validity of Walid's virulent hatred of the Jews and how he recounts her saying "show me in the Bible the bad things the Jews did". To accommodate her he then began to diligently study the Bible, factual history and other sources in order to substantiate his indoctrinated hatred.

What transpired becomes the platform for this excellent study, which is not only an autobiographical account of Walid, but also a detailed investigation into anti-Semitism, the Middle East, Christianity and Islam itself.

As the book progresses the writer declares that "...I am no longer a terrorist. I am a Christian, dedicated to peace and truth..."

Indeed, the entire message of this book cited as being written with the declared intent of bringing love and truth to anyone who is prepared to listen.

The brutal yet gripping honesty of the writer's involvement in terrorism, hatred of the Jews, and his uncompromising look at almost all the fundamental tenets of Islam is often quite disturbing.

The author describes how he found it amazing that when he was a self confessed terrorist, and a hater of the Jews, he was hailed as a freedom fighter. Yet, by way of comparison, when he became a Christian and began loving the Jewish people, he was suddenly abused as a "racist" and a "traitor".

The former PLO terrorist leaves the reader with the clear message that terrorists recognise no ethics or moral code and that the Israelis face an enemy with whom they cannot negotiate because the primary goal is not the territory. Basing such statements on personal knowledge/experience, the reader is shown that such aspirations are purportedly only secondary issues with the primary intent being the elimination of Israel itself. A plethora of references are provided to support this assertion.

The book illustrates how vigorously the West today is focussed upon creating a Palestinian state, while allegedly sidestepping he Palestinian Charter that is cited as calling for an Arab state in the place of Israel, with no Jews, and with Islam as the official state religion.

The book also investigates the alleged misinformation in the media together with what is called the "miasma of words that insulates the public from the evil of terrorism" in the wake of recent terrorist attacks. The book demonstrating how it is not difficult for extremists to allegedly explain Islam in a completely untruthful fashion to the unquestioning moderates and win them over by the droves. Such a statement being made within the context of sincere concern as to how so many Westerners, especially on the far left side of politics, allegedly demonise Israel and exonerate Islamic-Arab terror.

In the text (page 28) another issue expounded & discussed is that the alleged mentor of Osama bin Laden and the actual inspiration for Al-Qaeda was purportedly a Palestinian named Mustafa Azzam. The implications of this are addressed.

Through an abundance of references the reader is shown how Palestinian schools/textbooks are allegedly required to portray the existence of Israel as a catastrophe and how hatred of the Jews is purportedly an integral part of their curriculum.

The study also proceeds to investigate the Jewish claim to the Holy Land as described in the Hebrew Christian Scriptures. The book discusses how some elements of the professing Church within the Middle East allegedly adhere to the doctrines of replacement and liberation theology and do not recognise what he cites as the true place of Israel as literally cited in the Bible. One senior Church leader in Jerusalem is quoted on page 39 as being recorded on tape by the author as stating that "Israel must be eliminated, by whatever means".

Indeed, the entire situation in the Middle East is also discussed from a Biblical perspective, including the prophetic sections of the Hebrew Christian Scriptures pertaining to the end times and how such compare with those within the Islamic faith that the writer once adhered to.

Having studied the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East for some three decades, I personally consider this to be one of the most timely, gripping and relevant studies of recent years and an account which is an absolute "must read" in relation to the ongoing situation in the region.

Walid Shoebat speaks out
A new important book was published recently: Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America by Lebanese Author Brigitte Gabriel. This new book is a must for all people who wish to understand first hand the real roots of Islamic fundamentalism and it's dangerous.

"Because They Hate":
A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America

Brigitte Gabriel

With strident confidence, American Congress for Truth founder Gabriel rebukes the American public for being "weak, asleep or careless" in the face of Muslim terrorism. A Christian survivor of the vicious civil war between Lebanese Christians and Muslims in the 1970s, Gabriel leans on her own terrifying experiences to condemn Muslims, without apparent regard for their ethnicity, ideology or historical role. Consistently using the words "Muslim" and "Arab" as if they were interchangeable, she concludes that the U.S. is "facing total destruction" at the hands of people who are uncultured and cruel, and prescribes such solutions as "profile, profile and profile," and banning "hate education" in Islamic institutions. Though her writing is eloquent and her passion tremendous, Gabriel's strict dichotomy between "evil versus goodness" is too extreme to be informative. Readers will be forced to decide whether or not to accept her heart-felt bias. (Oct.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

“Brigitte Gabriel eloquently reminds America what is truly at stake in this struggle against terrorism: our families, our way of life, and our hopes. Ms. Gabriel's personal account of her own experience is riveting, compelling and spellbinding. This is a must read for the entire American public . . . This book contains monumental revelations that will shock and disturb you. But it is also a story of an indomitable spirit--Brigitte's-- that will move you.”
--Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Amongst Us, Executive Director, the Investigative Project on Terrorism

"A compelling and captivating personal story with a powerful lesson about threats to freedom in our time."--R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence, 1993-95

“Brigitte Gabriel's story is at once intensely personal and possessing global significance . . . the story of her family and her childhood encapsulates the threat that faces the entire free world today. Brigitte Gabriel's words should be read, and studied carefully, by all the law enforcement and government officials of the West -- as well as by everyone who values freedom.” -- Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

“Because They Hate should be read by all to understand radical Islam. Brigitte . . . . This book gives dire warning of what is to come if the democratic and Western world does not take responsible action to protect its people and societies. The United States is the primary target as Islamic Radicalism attempts to spread its worldwide dominance.”-- Paul E. Vallely, Maj. General US Army (Ret.), FOX News Channel Military Analyst, and coauthor of Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror

Brigitte Gabriel Speaks on Radical Islam

Friday, September 29, 2006

Canadian pride:
Harper forces change of resolution at
Francophonie summit

Posted by Joel Johannesen --

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Harper invested some of Canada’s newfound global heft and growing global respect today, as he argued for, and succeeded, in causing a change in an important resolution.

The resolution as originally written—in typical liberal-left U.N.-like anti-Israel style, called for a recognition of the suffering of those in Lebanon this past summer. Not in Israel—just Lebanon. Israel presumably deserved to suffer through the slaughter that the terrorist Hezbollah Islamo-fascist savages imposed on them by lobbing bombs into civilian populations on purpose in order to kill as many innocent Jews as possible.

“Obviously, Canada believes.....we should recognize the victims in both Lebanon and Israel,” he said. Obvious only if you’re not abjectly anti-Israel.

Not reported in the above story, the debate continued and after our Canadian Prime Minister spoke, the wording was changed such that the suffering of all the people —including even the Jews in Israel —was recognized.

And if I may tip my hat and expose my
pro-Canada bias at this point:

Yay Canada, and yay Prime Minister Harper. Go team!
This is an interesting article answering another article from the British newspaper 'The Guardian', which was originaly published in the site Front Page Magazine, by Carol Gould; It talks of the endless and unjustified attacks of the British media & British politicians on Israel. Very interesting reading.

The Guardian: An Atrocity Created Israel's Birth

By Carol Gould | September 29, 2006

The obsession Britons have with the ‘atrocity’ that is the Jewish State can easily render one ill when attempting to deal with this national disease. In the past week the ‘Independent’ has been running a series of dramatic front pages with images of death and destruction caused by – you guessed it – America and Israel. The Guardian has had its usual hate-fest, whilst the media and British political party conferences have been filled with vituperation leveled at Tony Blair’s ‘caving in to Bush and the American Zionist lobby,’ hence allowing Israel to rain bombs down on Lebanon.

Recently the British journalist Melanie Phillips criticised the Anglo-Jewish community for its lack of robustness in dealing with the daily onslaught from white British anti-Semites, obsessed Israel-haters and the huge, loud, well-funded and vociferous Anglo-Muslim community. She was right, but…

If the tiny Jewish community of Britain is as tired, shell-shocked and blown away as I am by the constant attacks on everything Jews represent and care about post-Holocaust, then one cannot blame the Jewish community for being less than forceful. It has reached the stage that many Anglo-Jews feel kicked and stabbed every day. Their souls are eaten by the distorted and sneering articles, radio spots and TV appearances of an endless stream of men and women who have an irrational hatred of that – horror or horrors! – little Jew-filled country that has more symphony orchestras than all of the other nations in the Middle East and Africa put together.

Last year I took time off from making three films about British heroism on the Home Front during the Second World War to attend the ‘Global Peace and Unity’ Conference in Canary Wharf. This was advertised as a celebration of Islamic culture. I was in such a state of alarm afterwards that I do believe a less fit person might have succumbed to apoplexy or worse from the profound shock of this Jihadist event. Its aftermath was a hateful attack by the Muslim Public Affairs Council UK on critics of the event because some of those critics dared write to one of their incendiary blogs. One MPAC blogger referred to Melanie Phillips in June of this year as an example of the badly-groomed Jew whom ‘Hitler got rid of the right way.’ Thankfully, this entry later disappeared from their site, but it beggars belief that such an organisation continues to stir hatred of Jews, Israel and Zionist causes. However, the plethora of mainstream British writing that demonises Israel and Jewish aspirations very possibly fuels these groups.

Before turning to Geoffrey Wheatcroft, one final note: CBS News’ Mark Phillips last week referred to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK as a ‘moderate’ organisation and interviewed its head, Asghar Bukhari on the Couric programme. MPACUK, a vehicle for ’Anglo-Muslim fury,’ that has just opened additional offices in Ilford and Birmingham is not moderate, and CBS had better do its homework with a bit more thoroughness.

Putting aside the Muslim rage at everything the tiny community of Anglo Jews represent, the vicious attacks on Israel, on Zionists and on post-Holocaust Jewish aspirations by non-Muslim Britons are worrying indeed.

Before examining Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s ‘Guardian’ article (‘Olmert should have more of an insight than most into terrorism’) about the birth of Israel, I would like to set British non-Jews and British anti-Zionists ( this includes Jews against Zionism) a challenge. I would like them to sit down and think about what it is to be born Jewish. When one is born Jewish it is likely one’s parents start telling the offspring about the unspeakable tragedy of the Holocaust from the time said progeny are young enough to grasp language. This does not turn one into a Jewish terrorist (Wheatcroft’s accusation), but it does make one feel that after Christian Europe stood by and allowed its magnificent Jewish population to be carted away and tortured, sterilised, and exterminated one needs to be a bit more able to defend oneself than did those six million who marched away to be eliminated. Growing up non-Jewish means NOT hearing about the various ways one’s family members were tortured and exterminated. It means tea and hockey sticks and cricket bats and perhaps a bit of unpleasantness at school.

Just as Jews born after 1945 feel a wee bit more wary of those hell-bent on one’s demise, Israelis do need to think from time to time about avoiding annihilation. After sixty years of Arab countries being only brutal and inhospitable to the tortured remnant of European Jewry who arrived in Palestine after the Holocaust, an Israeli begins to think it is useful to have some way of defending oneself against said endless streams of terrorists, rockets and hostile armies.

But no, according to the British media -- and to those who have verbally hit me in the face with this in recent years as if it does not cut me to the very depths of my soul -- Jews invented terrorism and Israel has proven what an abomination Jewish nationhood is. Indeed, last month the London media reported that Lord Janner, a distinguished Anglo-Jewish peer, was literally physically punched by Lord Bramall over the issue of Israel. The accusations of “Jews inventing terrorism’ is a slur against a Jew’s very being and actually turns some into what they did not used to be: rabid Zionists who will defend the great Jewish faith and people to the death.

The Jewish people gave the world Einstein, TIME’s man of the Century. The Jewish people gave the world the man the British media acknowledged as the greatest playwright of the twentieth century, Arthur Miller. The Jewish people gave the world Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, who eradicated Polio, their vaccine stopping billions of Muslims and Christians from contracting the disease. The Jewish people gave the world the Weizmann Institute in Israel, which works tirelessly to develop cures for all diseases for all the peoples of the world. The Jewish charity ORT helps everyone in need, whatever their creed. Jews give millions every year to charities at Rosh Hashanah and Passover with no regard to the religion of the recipients. The British media, however, spend endless hours demonising ‘lobbies’ of aggressive, self-absorbed Zionists.

I am also weary of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, and their followers in Britain, boycotting Israeli goods. I am sick of academic boycotts of Israel. I lament that tiny nation, so small that it can be seen end-to-end from the top of a hotel in Tel Aviv, being slammed for defending herself when under perpetual attack since her founding.

In Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s editorial of 14 September 2006, he paints a picture of an Israel born in violence and brutality engineered by an army of ruthless killer Jews. He even brings in the Broadway playwright Ben Hecht, author of ‘The Front Page’ and uses a plea at the time of the establishment of the Jewish State to prove his point that Jews were rampant terrorists bent on overrunning the Middle East.

Well, Mr Wheatcroft: just imagine what it was like to be a Jew in 1948. When in the history of mankind had one whole civilisation nearly been obliterated by your fellow Christians? When had the surviving Jews – including Ben Hecht – been in such a collective state of shock? Do you have any idea how utterly stunned and vulnerable world Jewry felt when the news of the death camps emerged from ravaged Europe? What were you doing? My mother told me that her father, the grandfather I never met, read a letter posted to him in Philadelphia from a relative in Poland in 1936. The news of the beginnings of deportations of Jews and anti-Jew laws in Germany, and of his kin’s desperate fears was so shocking to Grandpa that he lay down and died.

That, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, is how deeply Jews felt about their destiny in those terrible, dark years. In Woody Allen’s ‘Radio Days’ the lead character is seen holding up a Blue Box to raise pennies for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. How many Jewish children, shocked from their earliest years of comprehension of thought, held these little tin boxes with the hope of a homeland being established? Why is it that this cherished hope is such anathema to the non-Jewish British media? Yes, Israel has fought bloody wars and is no more an angel than any other nation, but what is it about Jewish aspirations that so angers British writers when there are other, infinitely more bellicose and massively larger countries in the world requiring media attention?

In the Wheatcroft article he says, ‘Israeli state violence has always more than matched that of its opponents’ and he adds that this dates from before the creation of the State of Israel. With a tiny handful of Jews in Palestine at that time, how could this be true? Yes, Israeli might and military genius have quelled the endless decades of hatred and violence from her uncharitable neighbours. Imagine if Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s Britain had not been an island and had been surrounded by violent countries perpetually bent on Britain’s destruction? How would Britain have reacted had we been attacked on Good Friday or Christmas, as Israel was on Yom Kippur in 1973?

How generous of Wheatcroft to acknowledge that Jabotinsky was 'brilliant and charismatic.' He explains the background of the Irgun, Stern, Herut, Likud and now Kadima to which Olmert and Livni attach themselves. In this context the concept of an 'iron wall' envisaged by Jabotinsky is brought into the present day. The British media are fixated on the separation or 'apartheid' wall. In the violence of rampantly anti-Semitic turn-of-the-century Europe Jews dreamed of a place where they could go out for a loaf of bread without being beaten to death. In pre-World War II Europe Jews could go nowhere and ended up in concentration camps. In the context of those times the likes of Jabotinsky and Begin had a right to imagine a world where Jews might just live in dignity and peace for a day or so. Since the wall was built the plague of suicide bombings has dropped. That, of course, has not stopped thousands of rockets from being launched into civilian Israel.

The Jews who had lived in Palestine for centuries and those who arrived from Europe to set up communal farms – some based on Soviet models – were non-violent intellectuals, artists, scientists and agricultural experts who wanted to reach out to their Arab neighbours. They were met only with hostility and violence. Imagine the awesome Greater Middle East had the Arab countries reached out with generosity and magnanimity to the European Semitic arrivals!

Wheatcroft describes with barely concealed horror a comment made by Israeli Cabinet Minister Tzipi Livni to Germany’s Der Spiegel. She says that as a youngster all she ever heard was that the Jewish people had a right to a state spanning both sides of the Jordan, and that her father’s grave bore a map of Greater Israel. He then goes on to make a snide aside about her being a ‘princess.’ We hear a lot about virulent critics of Jewish nationhood not being anti-Semites. I have great difficulty reading Wheatcroft’s article without feeling he has a deep and abiding hatred of anything Jews want to do other than bow and scrape and say ‘Yes, I’ll go to that detention camp, sir, just as you wish.’

Americans in the United Kingdom are fair game because of a widespread and often visceral anger in Britain that successive administrations have supported the Jewish State. So, whenever I have found myself at the receiving end of a shouting, red-faced attack in thirty years as an adult in Britain, I am always told about 1) the British soldiers lynched by Jewish terrorists; 2) the blowing up of the King David Hotel and 3) the Jews habitually attacking Arab civilians. Despite the founders’ fervent dream of a peaceful new life in a shared land, the birth of Israel was a bloody and tragic episode engendered by her furious Arab neighbours. The right of Jews to a small homeland in the sun was small cheese considering what Europe had done to this previously large, civilised and productive people.

What is so pernicious about Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s article is that he cherry-picks Jewish history. He finds a bizarre quote from the oft-explosive ben Gurion, who in a fit of pique referred to the Zionist Jabotinsky as ‘Vladimir Hitler.’ This Wheatcroft uses in his perverse prose as yet another example of the true vileness of the Zionist movement. He goes on to quote Chaim Weizmann, who expressed concern about the tiny band of Jewish extremists who evinced ‘Hitlerism.’

This, dear reader, is code for ‘Israel is like the Nazis.’ It implies that even Weizmann foresaw Hitlerite behaviour in Jews. This is a reprehensible twisting of a comment taken out of the context of the sweep of history.

Wheatcroft ends his piece by taking out of context the vow of ‘blood and fire’ that post- Holocaust Jews nurtured in their souls by making the unbelievable statement about the right-wing legacy of Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, ‘Mightn’t that possibly give them some insight into the other ‘terrorists of Palestine’ who have been tempted by ‘blood and fire’ and who also believe they have the right to a state?’

The Guardian article is a dangerous polemic because it gives the impression that Jews were a violent, spiteful and ruthless band of terrorists who sought to wreak havoc on the otherwise peaceful Levant. There had been Arab violence for decades against the British presence. Jews trying to live in harmony – with their eminently worthy Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, Hadassah Hospital and other virtuous enterprises – were under constant attack. Wheatcroft describes a world Jewish community demanding violence to achieve its goals. Describing the uprooting of Palestinians, he makes this look lie a mass pogrom.

It needs reiterating here again that after the Holocaust many Jewish families across the globe shared a dream of a small place in the sun where they could farm, do business and raise families in harmony with their neighbours. The demonic picture of the early Zionist movement has now permeated British social discourse to such an extent that if one asks for a bottle of Kiddush wine in a shop in Maida Vale one gets a tirade from a young cashier about ‘Zionist apartheid and genocide.’ Aside from the fact that in South Africa the major warriors against apartheid were all Jews, the idea that Israel is perpetrating genocide is a vile slander.

The rewriting of Jewish history in the British media is frightening. This is a fact: no Jew would ever have had to take up arms had the surrounding communities not been hell-bent on the destruction of any remote idea of a Jewish settlement. Jews wanted to wield scythes, not swords, when they ventured away from anti-Semitic Europe to the Holy Land. Jews have lived as very possibly the most non-violent peoples of the world for two-thousand years and it is not in their nature to convene massacres and expulsions. Israel has had to be in a state of war for fifty-eight years, but this was not the aspiration of the original Zionists. This is a fact that is never told when the British media are fulminating about the Jewish State and ‘Bush’s Zionist Lobby.’

Only when I came to Britain as a very young woman did I ever hear anyone refer to Israel as a terrorist state. It is unacceptable that British people continue to use the incidents of the lynching of their two soldiers and the bombing of the King David Hotel to totally repudiate the miracle of the Jewish State. It diminishes one’s opinion of Britons that they can obsess about a tiny minority of Israeli Jews in the Stern Gang and Irgun, who were a small part of the birth of the great nation of Israel.

Had the Palestinians had larger-than-life leaders like Theodor Herzl. Chaim Weizmann, David ben-Gurion, Golda Meir or Yitzhak Rabin – or for that matter Menachim Begin who went from right-winger to peacemaker embracing the President of Egypt – they might have had a state as awesome as Israel.

It is time for Great Britain and its many media pundits to understand what Israel means to every Jew born after the Holocaust, to every Jew still alive with a Nazi tattoo on their withered arms, to every Jew across the globe who keeps in the back of their minds that another Shoah could unfold and that the Jewish State would be the only haven in the world for the remainder of world Jewry.

When commentators in Britain, including art historians and novelists, demand the ‘dismantling of Israel,’ one is bound to ask if they are not really asking for the Final Solution to be completed. When in January 2001 Faisal Bodi’s headline in the Guardian was, ‘Israel Simply Has no Right to Exist,’ was this not a distinguished British newspaper saying that six million Jews have no right to exist? If this is not anti-Semitism, what is? If a newspaper had said one of the scores of Muslim nations had no right to exist, would this not have been a blatant case of Islamophobia by a respected publication?

It is time for those who have never grown up Jewish or been repeatedly beaten up, as was the gentle young Stephen Spielberg, to stop writing and ranting on television about the dangerous ’Zionist Lobby.’

It is time for non-Jews who have never experienced the endless stories of unspeakable sadism committed against Jewish brethren that Jews listen to at family gatherings every day since 1945, to stop demonising a sovereign nation that has a right as does any other nation to defend itself against eternal attack and terror.

It is time for those who have never experienced since childhood being abused and ridiculed for adhering to one of the oldest and most civilised faiths humankind has ever generated to stop writing hurtful diatribes about ‘Jewish terrorism’ and instead pay heed to the grave dangers the world faces from the medieval, violent and turbulent regimes that degrade women, that cut off tongues and hands for minor misdemeanours and that threaten the demise of all of us.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

A Homemade Genocide

The Arab world is subject to genocide, it is true. It's just that it's mostly self-inflicted, and Israel has nothing to do with any of it.

Fact no. 1: Since the establishment of the State of Israel a merciless genocide is being perpetrated against Muslims and/or Arabs.
Fact no. 2:
The conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Arabs as a whole and against the Palestinians in particular, is regarded as the central conflict in the world today.
Fact no. 3
: According to polls carried out in the European Union, Israel holds first place as “Danger to world peace”. In Holland, for instance, 74% of the population holds this view. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Israel. Connecting between these findings creates one of the biggest deceptions of modern times: Israel is regarded as the country responsible for every calamity, misfortune and hardship. It is a danger to world peace, not just to the Arab or Muslim world.
The finger is pointed cleverly. It’s difficult to blame Israel for the genocide in Sudan or for the civil war in Algeria. How is it done? Dozens of publications, articles, books, periodicals and websites are dedicated to one purpose only: Turning Israel into a state that ceaselessly perpetrates war crimes. In Jakarta and in Khartoum they burn the Israeli flag, and in London, in Oslo and in Zurich hate articles are published, supporting the destruction of Israel.
Any request in Internet search engines for the words “genocide” against “Muslims”, “Arabs” or “Palestinians”, in the context of “Zionists” or “Israel” – will give us endless results. Even after we’ve filtered out the trash, we are left with millions of publications written in deadly seriousness.
This abundance brings results. It works like brainwashing. It is the accepted position, and not just a fringe opinion. Only five years ago we were witness to a international anti-Israeli show in the Durban Convention. Only two years ago we were shocked when a member of our Academia blamed Israel of ‘symbolic genocide’ against the Palestinian people. Much ado about nothing. There are thousands of publications blaming Israel of genocide, and not ‘symbolic’.
Under an academic and/or journalistic umbrella, today’s Israel is compared to the damned Germany of yesteryear. In conclusion, there are those who call to terminate the ‘Zionist project’. And in more simple words: because Israel is a country that perpetrates so many war crimes and engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide – it has no right to exist. This, for instance, is the essence of an article by the Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder (writer of “Sophie’s world”), who wrote, among other things: “We call killers of children by their name”). The conclusion is that Israel has no right to exist.

How the deception works

The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind. A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews. A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims.
This is not a matter of opinion or viewpoint. This is the result of factual examination, as precise as possible, of the numbers of victims of various wars and conflicts that have taken place since the establishment of the State of Israel up till this time, in which the massacre continues. It is, indeed, death on a massive scale. A massacre. It is the wiping out of villages and cities and whole populations. And the world is silent. The Muslims are indeed abandoned. They are murdered and the world is silent. And if it bothers to open its mouth, it doesn’t complain about the murderers. It doesn’t complain about the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity. It complains about Israel.
This great deception, that covers up the real facts, endures and even grows because of one reason only: The Media and Academia in the West participate in it. In endless publications, books, periodicals and websites Israel is portrayed as a state that perpetrates “war crimes”, “ethnic cleansing”, and “systematic murder”. Sometimes it is because this is fashionable, sometimes it is mistakenly, sometimes it is the result of hypocrisy and double standards. Sometimes it is new and old anti-Semitism, from the left and from the right, overt and covert. Most of the classic blood libels were refuted not long after they came into being. The blood libel of modern times, against the state of Israel, continues to grow. Many Israelis and Jews are accessories to the nurturing of the libel.

The Arab-Israeli conflict

The Zionist settling of this country, which began at the end of the 19th century, did indeed create a conflict between Jews and Arabs. The amount of those killed in various clashes up till the establishment of the State of Israel was no more than a few thousands, of both Jews and Arabs. Most of the Arabs killed in those years were killed in armed struggles of Arabs amongst themselves; such as, for example, in the days of the Great Arab Uprising of 1936 – 1939. That was a sign of things to come. Many others were killed as a result of the harsh hand wielded by the British. Israel never did anything comparable.
Israel’s War of Independence, known also as the War of 48’, left between 5,000 to 15,000 dead from among the Palestinians and citizens of Arab countries. In this war, as in any war, there were indeed atrocities. The attackers declared their goal, and if they had won, a mass extermination of Jews would have taken place. On Israel’s side there were also barbarous acts, but they were on the fringe of the fringe. Less, far less, than in any other war in modern times. Far less than what is being perpetrated every day in these very times, by Muslims, mainly against Muslims, in Sudan and in Iraq.
The next event of importance was the Sinai War of 1956. About 1,650 Egyptians were killed, about 1,000 at the hands of the Israelis and about 650 by the French and British forces. Next came the Six Day War (1967- IJ). The highest estimates talk of 21,000 Arabs killed on all three fronts – Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Yom Kippur War (1973 – IJ) resulted in 8,500 Arab dead, this time on only two fronts – Egypt and Syria.
Then there were ‘smaller’ wars: The first Lebanon war, which was initially mainly against the PLO and not against Lebanon. This was a war in a war. These were the years of the bloody civil war in Lebanon, a war we will discuss further later on. And thus also in the second Lebanon war, in which about a thousand Lebanese were killed.
Thousands of Palestinians were killed during the Israeli occupation of the territories, that began at the end of the Six Day War. Most were killed during the two Intifadas, the one that commenced in 1987 and resulted in 1,800 Palestinian deaths, and the one that commenced in 2000 with a Palestinan death toll of 3,700. In between, there were more military actions that caused further Arab fatalities. If we exaggerate, we can say that these were a few hundred more who were killed. Hundreds. Not hundreds of thousands. Not millions.
The total count reaches about 60,000 Arabs killed in the framework of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Among them only several thousand Palestinians, although it is because of them, and only them, that Israel is the target of the world’s anger. Every Arab and Muslim death is regrettable. And it is okay to criticize Israel. But the obsessive and demonic criticism emphasizes a far more amazing fact: The silence of the world, or at least relative silence, in the face of the systematic extermination of millions of others by Muslim and Arab regimes.

The blood price of the Muslims

From here on we must ask: How many Arabs and Muslims have been killed in those same years in other countries, for instance, in Russia or in France, and how many Arabs, Muslims and others, were killed in those same years by Arabs and Muslims. The information gathered here is based on various research institutes, academic bodies, international organizations (such as Amnesty and other bodies that follow human rights), the UN, and governmental agents.
In many cases the different organizations present different and contradictory numbers. The differences sometimes reach hundreds of thousands, and sometimes even millions. We will probably never know the precise number. But even the lowest agreed numbers, that are the basis for the tables given here, present a staggering and horrific picture. In addition, time is too short to survey bloody conflicts that are not even covered in these tables, although these conflicts took a higher human toll than the blood price of the whole Arab-Israeli conflict.

Algeria: A few years after the establishment of the State of Israel, there began another war of independence. This time it was Algeria against France, between the years 1954-1962. The number of victims on the Muslim side is a subject for controversy. According to official sources in Algeria it is over a million. There are research institutes in the west that tend to accept that number. French sources have tried in the past to claim that it is only a quarter of a million Muslims, with an additional 100,000 Muslim collaborators with the French. But these estimates are regarded as tendentious and low. Today there is no question that the French killed nearly 600,000 Muslims. And these are the French, who do not stop preaching to Israel, the Israel that in the whole history of its conflict with the Arabs failed to reach even one tenth of that number, and even then, according to the more severe assessments.
The massacre in Algeria continues. In the 1991 elections the Islamic Salvation Front was voted in. The results of the elections were cancelled by the army. Since then a civil war has been raging, between the central government, supported by the army, and Islamic movements. According to various estimates, there have been about 100,000 victims so far. Most of them have been innocent civilians. In most cases it has been horrific massacres of whole villages, women, children and old people. A massacre in the name of Islam.
Algeria summary: 500,000 to 1 million in the war of independence; 100,000 in the civil war in the 90’s.

Sudan: the worst series of crimes

Sudan: A country torn by campaigns of destruction, almost all of them between the Arab-Muslim north, that is control of the country, and the south, populated by blacks. Two civil wars have taken place in this country, and a massacre, under government patronage, has been taking place in recent years in the district of Darfur. The first civil war spanned the years of 1955-1972. Moderate estimates talk of 500,000 victims. In 1983 the second civil war began. But it wasn’t a civil war but a systematic massacre suitably defined as ‘genocide’. The goals were Islamization, Arabization and mass deportation, that occasionally becomes slaughter, also for the need to gain control over giant oil fields. We are talking about an estimated 1.9 million victims.
The division between Muslim and other victims is unclear. The large district of Noba, populated by many black Muslims, was served its portion of horrors. The Muslims, should they be black, are not granted any favors. Since the rise to power of radical Islam, under the spiritual guidance of Dr. Hassan Thorabi, the situation has worsened. This is probably the worst series of crimes against humanity since WWII. We’re talking about ethnic cleansing, deportations, mass murder, slave trade, forcible enforcement of the laws of Islam, taking children from their parents and more. Millions have become refugees. As far as is known, there are not millions of publications about the Sudanese ‘Right of Return’ and there are no petitions by intellectuals negating Sudan’s right to exist.
Recent years have been all about Darfur. Again Muslims (Arabs) are murdering (black) Muslims and heathens, and the numbers are unclear. Moderate estimates are talking about 200,000 victims, higher estimates say 600,000. No one knows for sure. And the slaughter continues.
Throughout the atrocities of Sudan, the slaughter has been perpetrated mainly by the Arab Muslim regime, and the great majority of victims, if not all, are black, of all religions, including Muslims.
Sudan summary: 2.6 million to 3 million.

Afghanistan: This is a web of nonstop mass killing – domestic and external. The Soviet invasion, which began on 24th December 1979 and ended on 2nd February 1989, left about a million dead. Other estimates talk of 1.5 million dead civilians and an additional 90,000 soldiers.
After the withdrawal of the Soviet Forces, Afghanistan went through a series of civil wars and struggles between the Soviet supporters, the Mojahidin and the Taliban. Each group carried out a doctrine of mass extermination of its opponents. The sum of the fatalities in civil war, up to the invasion of the coalition forces under American leadership in 2001, is about one million.
There are those who complain, and rightly so, about the carnage that took place as a result of the coalition offensive to overthrow the Taliban regime and as part of the armed struggle against al Qaida. Well, the invasion into Afghanistan caused a relatively limited number of deaths, less than 10,000. Had it not taken place, we would have seen a continuation of the self-inflicted genocide, with an average of 100,000 fatalities a year.
Afghanistan Summary: One million to one and a half million, as a result of the Soviet invasion; about one million in the civil war.

Somalia: unending civil war

Somalia: Since 1977 this Muslim state in East Africa has been immersed in an unending civil war. The number of victims is estimated at about 550,000. It is Muslims killing mainly Muslims. UN attempts to intervene, in the interest of peace keeping, ended in the failure, as did later attempts by American Forces.
Most of the victims died not in the battle fields, but as a result of deliberate starvation and slaughter of civilians, in bombardments aimed at the civilian population (massive bombardments of opponent districts, such as the bombardment of Somaliland, that caused the deaths of 50,000 ).
Somalia Summary: 400,000 to 550,000 victims in the civil war.

Bangladesh: 1 of the 3 greatest genocides

Bangladesh: This country aspired to gain independence from Pakistan. Pakistan reacted with a military invasion that caused mass destruction. It was not a war, it was a massacre. One to two million people were systematically liquidated in 1971. Some researchers define the events of that year in Bangladesh as one of the three greatest genocides in (history - IJ) (after the Holocaust and the Ruanda genocide).
An inquiry committee appointed by the government of Bangladesh counted 1.247 million fatalities as a result of systematic murder of civilians by Pakistan’s army forces. There are also numerous reports of ‘Death squads’, in which “Muslim soldiers were sent to execute mass killings of Muslim farmers”.
The Pakistani army ceased only after the intervention of India, which suffered from waves of refugees - millions – arriving from Bangladesh. At least 150 thousand more were murdered in acts of retaliation after the retreat of the Pakistan army.
Bangladesh summary: 1.4 million to 2 million.

Indonesia: The massacre commenced with a communist uprising

Indonesia: The biggest Muslim state in the world competes with Bangladesh for the dubious title of ‘The biggest massacre since the Holocaust’. The massacre commenced with a communist uprising in 1965. There are different assessments (of the number of fatalities - IJ) in this case as well. The accepted estimate talks of as many as 400 thousand Indonesians killed in the years 1965-1966, although stricter estimates claim the number is higher.
The massacre was perpetrated by the army, led by Hag’i Mohammed Soharto, who seized power in the country for the next 32 years. An investigator of those years points out that the person who was in charge of suppressing the rebellion, General Srv Adei, admitted: “We killed 2 million not 1 million, and we did good work”. For this argument, we will stick to the lower, more accepted estimates.
In 1975, after the end of the Portuguese rule, East Timor announced its independence. Within a short time it was invaded by Indonesia, who ruled the area until 1999. During these years about 100,000 to 200,000 people were killed, along with the complete destruction of infrastructure.
Indonesia summary: 400,000 killed, with an additional 100,000 to 200,000 in East Timor

Iraq: the destruction of Saddam Hussein

Iraq: Most of the of the last two decades was the doing of Saddam Hussein. This is another case of a regime that caused the deaths of millions. Nonstop death. One of the highpoints was during the Iran-Iraq war, in the conflict over the Shat El Arab River, the river that is created by the convergence of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was a conflict that led to nothing but large scale destruction and mass killing. Estimates are between 450,000 and 650,000 Iraqis, and between 450,000 and 970,000 Iranians. Jews, Israelis, and Zionists were not around, as far as is known.
Waves of purges, some politically motivated (opposition), some ethnic ( the Kurdish minority) and some religiously motivated (the ruling Suni minority against the Shiite majority), yielded an astounding number of victims. Estimates vary from one million, according to local sources, to a quarter million, according to Human Rights Watch. Other international organizations quote an estimate of about half a million.
In the years 1991 - 1992 there was a Shiite uprising in Iraq. There are contradictory estimates about the number of victims. The numbers vary from 40,000 to 200,000. In addition to the Iraqis that were slaughtered one must add the Kurds. During Saddam Hussein’s reign, between 200,000 to 300,000 of them were killed in a genocide that continued all through the 1980’s and the 1990’s.
Over half a million more Iraqis died from diseases because of the shortage of medicine, which was the result of sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Today it is clear that this was a continuation of the genocide perpetrated by Saddam on his own people. He could have purchased medicine, he had enough money to buy food and to build hospitals for all the children of Iraq, but Saddam preferred to build palaces and to distribute franchises to many in the west and in Arab states. This issue is being exposed in the corruption of the UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ project.
The Iraqis continue to suffer. The civil war that is raging there now - even if some would rather not give that name to the mutual massacre of Sunis and Shiites – is costing tens of thousands of lives. It is estimated that about 100,000 people have been killed since the coalition forces took control in Iraq.

Iraq Summary: 1.54 million to 2 million victims.

Iran Summary: 450,000 to 970,000 victims.

Lebanon: The Lebanese civil war

Lebanon: The Lebanese civil war took place from 1975 to 1990. Israel was involved in certain stages, by way of the first Lebanon War in 1982. There is no disagreement that a considerable part of the victims were killed in the first two years.
The more assessments talk of over 130,000 killed. Most of them were Lebanese killed by other Lebanese, on religious, ethnic grounds and in connection with the Syrian involvement. Syria transferred its support between various parties in the conflict. The highest estimates claim that Israeli activities were the cause of around 18,000 people, the great majority of which were fighters.
Lebanon summary: 130,000.

Yemen: In the civil war that took place in Yemen from 1962 to 1970, with Egyptian and Saudi involvement, 100,000 to 150,000 Yemenites were killed, and more than a thousand Egyptians and a thousand Saudis.
Egypt committed war crimes by incorporating the use of chemical warfare. Riots in Yemen from 1984 to 1986 caused the deaths of thousands more.
Yemen summary: 100,000 to 150,000 fatalities

Chechnya: Russia turned down Chechen Republic demands for independence, and this led to the first Chechen war of 1994 to 1996. The war cost the lives of 50,000 to 200,000 Chechens.
Russia put a great deal into this conflict, but failed miserably. This did not help Chechens, because although they had gained autonomy there republic was in ruins.
The second Chechen War began in 1999 and officially ended in 2001, but it has not really ended, and number of the victims is estimated at 30,000 to 100,000.
Chechnya summary: 80,000 to 300,000 fatalities.

Smaller Confrontations

From Jordan to Zanzibar: In addition to the wars and the massacres, there have also been smaller confrontations, that have cost the lives of thousands and tens of thousands, of Muslims and Arabs (killed) by Muslims and Arabs. These confrontations are not even taken into account in the tables presented on these pages, because the numbers are small, relatively speaking, even though the numbers of those killed are far higher than the numbers of the victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here are some of them:

Jordan: 1970 to 1971 the Black September riots took place In the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. King Hussein was fed up of the Palestians use of the country and their threatened to take control of it. The confrontation, mainly a massacre in the refugee camps, took thousands of lives. According to estimates provided by the Palestinians themselves - 10,000 to 25,000 fatalities. According to other sources - a few thousand.

Chad: Half of the population of Chad are Muslims: In various civil wars 30,000 civilians have been killed.

Kosovo: In the mainly Muslim area of Yugoslavia about 10,000 were killed in the war there from 1998 to 2000.

Tajikistan: Civil war from 1992 to 1996 left about 50,000 dead.

Syria: Hafez Assad’s systematic persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood ended in the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama, costing the lives of about 20,000 people.

Iran: Thousands were killed in the beginning of the Humeini Revolution. The precise number is unknown, but is somewhere between thousands and tens of thousands. The Kurds also suffered at the hands of Iran, and about 10,000 of them were murdered there.

Turkey: About 20,000 Kurds were killed in Turkey as part of the conflict there.

Zanzibar: In the earlyu 1960’s the island was granted independence, but only for a short time. At first, the Arabs were in power, but a black group, made up mainly of Muslims, slaughtered the Arab group, also Muslim, in 1964. The estimates are that 5,000 to 17,000 were killed.

Even this is not the end of the list. There were more conflicts with unknown numbers of victims in former USSR republics with Muslim majority populations (like the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagurno Karabach), and a disputable number of Muslims that were killed in mixed population countries in Africa, such as Nigeria, Mauritania or Uganda (in the years of Idi Amins reign in Uganda, in the decade that began in 1971, about 300,000 Ugandans were killed. Amin defined himself as Muslim, but in contrast to Sudan, it is hard to say that the background for the slaughter was Muslim, and it certainly wasn’t Arab.

"to liquidate the Jewish entity"

To all the above, one can add this data: The great majority of Arabs killed in the framework of the Israeli-Arab Conflict were killed as a result of wars instigated by the Arabs and as a result of their refusal to recognize the UN decision regarding the establishment of the State of Israel, or their refusal to recognize the Jews’ right of self-definition.
The number of Israelis killed by Arab aggression has been relatively far than the numbers of Arabs killed. In the War of the Independence, for example, more than 6,000 Israelis were killed out of a population that was then made up of 600,000. This means: One percent of the population. In comparison with this, Arab fatalities in the war against Israel came from seven countries, the populations of which were already tens of millions. Israel did not dream, did not think and did not want to destroy any Arab state. But the ostensible goal of the attacking armies was “to liquidate the Jewish entity”.

Obviously, in recent years, the Palestinian victims have received most of the attention of the Media and the Academia. In actual fact, these make up just a small percentage of the total sum of all victims. The total sum of Palestinians killed by Israel in the territories that were conquered is several thousand. 1,378 were killed in the first Intifada, and 3,700 since the start of the second Intifada.

This is less, for instance, than the Muslim victims massacred by former Syrian president, Hafez Assad in Hama in 1982. This is less than the Palestinians massacred by King Hussein in 1971. This is less than the number of those killed in one single massacre of Muslim Bosnians by the Serbs in 1991 in Srebrenica, a massacre that left 8,000 dead.

Every person killed is regrettable, but there is no greater libel than to call Israel’s actions ‘genocide’. And even so, the string ‘Israel’ and ‘genocide’ in Google search engine leads to 13,600,000 referrals. Try typing ‘Sudan’ and ‘genocide’ and you’ll get less than 9 million results. These numbers, if you will, are the essence of the great deception.

Not enlightened, but is not brutal

Another fact: Since WWII, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the national conflict with the lowest number of victims, but with the world’s highest number of publications hostile to Israel in the media and in the Academia.
At least half a million Algerians died during the French occupation. A million Afghanis died during the Soviet occupation. Millions of Muslims and Arabs were killed and slaughtered at the hands of Muslims. But all the world knows about one Mohammed a-Dura (whose death was regrettable, but there is some doubt whether he was killed by Israeli gunfire at all).
It is possible and acceptable to criticize Israel. But the excessive, obsessive, and at times anti-Semitic criticism serves also as a coverup, and in some cases also as an approval, of the genocide of millions of others.
Occupation is not enlightened and can’t be enlightened. But if we try to create a scale of ‘brutal occupation’, Israel will come last. This is a fact. This is not an opinion.
And what would have happened to the Palestinians if, instead of being under Israeli occupation they were under Iraqi occupation? Or Sudanese? Or even French or Soviet? It is highly probable that they would have been victims of genocide, at worst, and of mass killings, purges, and deportations at best.
But luckily for them they are under Israeli occupation. And even if, I repeat, there is no such thing as an enlightened occupation, and even if it is acceptable and possible, and at times necessary, to criticize Israel, there is no occupation and there has never been an occupation with so few fatalities (indeed, there are other injuries that are not manifested in the numbers of fatalities, such as the refugee problem. This will be discussed in a separate chapter).

Television screen ethics

So why is the impression of the world the direct opposite? How come there is no connection between the facts and the numbers and the so very demonic image of Israel in the world?
There are many answers. One of them is that western ethics have become the ethics of television cameras. If a Palestinian terrorist or a Hizballah man tries to shoot a rocket from the midst of a civilian neighborhood, and Israel retaliates with fire - causing the death of two children - there will be endless headlines and articles all over the world that “Israel murders children”. But if entire villages are destroyed in Sudan or whole cities are erased in Syria, there will be no television cameras in the area.
And so, according to television ethics, Jose Saramago and Harold Pinter sign a petition protesting ‘genocide’ and ‘war crimes’ perpetrated by Israel. They have never read the Geneva Convention either. They probably do not know that, aside for very few exceptions, the actions of Israel against military targets hitting civilians is allowed according to the Geneva Convention (protocol 1 paragraph 52.2). And because these people are so submerged in television ethics, they will not sign any petitions in protest of the genocide of Muslims by Muslims. Murder for the sake of it. They are allowed to do it.
Television ethics is a tragedy for the Arabs and the Muslims themselves. Israel pays dearly because of it, but the Arabs and the Muslims are its real victims. And as long as this blue screen morality continues, the Arabs and the Muslims will continue to pay the price.


There are those that claim that Arab and Muslim states are immune from criticism, because they are not democratic, but Israel is more worthy of criticism because it has democratic pretences. Claims like this are Orientalism at its worst. The covert assumption is that the Arabs and the Muslims are the retarded child of the world. They are allowed. It is not only Orientalism. It is racism.
The Arabs and the Muslims are not children and they are not retarded. Many Arabs and Muslims know this and write about it. They know that only an end to the self-deception and a taking of responsibility will lead to change. They know that as long as the west treats them as unequal and irresponsible it is lending a hand not only to a racist attitude, but also, and mainly, to a continuation of their mass murder.
The genocide that Israel is not committing, that is completely libelous, hides the real genocide, the silenced genocide that Arabs and Muslims are committing mainly against themselves. The libel has to stop so as to look at reality. It is in the interest of the Arabs and the Muslims. Israel pays in image. They pay in blood. If there is any morality left in the world, this should be in the interest of whoever has a remaining drop of it in him. And should it happen, it will be small news for Israel, and great news, far greater news, for Arabs and Muslims.