 By Bob Unruh Radicals send photo of headless body: 'We will kill you. Like this' A recent e-mail to a website launched after the 9/11 terror attacks to document the instances of Islamic violence said simply: "We will kill you. Like this ... " The message included a photograph of a man who had been beheaded, his body resting chest down on grass and his lifeless head placed in the middle of his own back. Another photograph showed a bloody knife. But the operator of The Religion of Peace website says those types of threats don't bother him much. "I don't think anyone who is serious about killing me is going to announce it in advance," the operator, who uses the pseudonym Glen Reinsford, told WND. "Still, one more reason to stay anonymous." Reinsford's website intends to demonstrate extreme violence is an integral part of fundamental Islam, not merely a means by which only radicals try to achieve "out-of-the-mainstream goals." Its list of "offerings" from the "Religion of Peace" for a single day this week: In Iraq, a bomb was placed near an ancient Christian church and two were killed; three innocents were cut down by a Taliban bomb in Afghanistan, and in Baghdad Sunni bombers murdered five Shia pilgrims. The site features a significant statistic: "Islamic Terrorists Have Carried Out more than 14,569 Deadly Terror Attacks since 9/11." It also keeps readers updated on other statistics. For the week of Dec. 12-18, there were 42 jihad attacks, 182 people killed and 362 people critically injured. For the month of November, there were 139 attacks in 14 different nations involving five religions, with 529 fatalities and 1,075 critically injured. The list is divided by years. Its many stark descriptions include a report from Nov. 24 in Afghanistan: "Four children are blown to bits when Islamic fundamentalists set off a roadside bomb next to a family vehicle." Reinsford explained in his "About" page, his alarm came about because of the integration of Islam and violence, typified by the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3,000 innocent bystanders. "In fact, some Muslims actually celebrated the attacks, and not just overseas, but even in the offices of the U.S. State Department," he wrote. "There were a few passionless, self-serving denunciations, to be sure, but Muslims save their real outrage for times when a Western leader makes a public statement against veils and headscarves, or someone draws a Muhammad cartoon. "By and large, most could hardly care less about the thousands of people who lose their lives in the name of this religion each year. It was not for three years, in fact, that there was even a fatwa issued against these attacks. To this day, major Muslim-American groups are reluctant to denounce Osama Bin Laden by name," he said. Islam, he noted, has been called a "religion of peace" by many, including President George W. Bush, who said, "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam … Islam is peace." But Reinsford believes Islam inspires not only "an enormous amount of violence, but an astonishing level of indifference and self-centeredness as well." "We watched in the months following 9/11, as Muslim-American groups began to act as hindrances in the war on terror and the efforts of Americans to defend themselves. We saw them ignore nearly every act of daily Islamic terror and instead publicize obscure issues and personal slights against Muslims and 'insults to Islam' that are absolutely trivial by comparison. "Finally, we came to realize that this extraordinary arrogance and self-absorption on the part of the Muslim community, along with an inability to empathize with people who are not like them or engage in the sort of self-critique that leads to moral progress is in no way incidental to the religion. "There is something deeply, deeply wrong with Islam," Reinsford wrote. He said the site originally was begun "in the naïve hope" that Muslims just didn't realize the extent of the violence done in the name of Islam. "Perhaps," he wrote, "if they understood, then they might be motivated to turn the critical eye inward and resolve those far more important issues that leave so many lives in agony and force the consumption of so many billions of dollars in security resources." However, "we never once heard" from a Muslim condemning the violence. So the mission was refined to "present the truth about Islam and how it is so tragically different from other religions, including its incompatibility with secularism and Western liberal values," he said. "The ridiculous level of violence committed in the name of this religion is staggering, despite the many billions of dollars that are spent each year to prevent attacks," he said. "Muslim apologists are constantly telling Westerners that the solution to the violence is greater understanding and tolerance for Islam. But isn't it the killers and their supporters who need lessons in tolerance and understanding … not their victims?" The website notes the horrific toll from Islamic attacks, with more victims each year than there were in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. "Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years." In the e-mail interview, Reinsford told WND his is a one-man operation that costs several thousands dollars a year to keep online. The website came about to make a point about the extent of violence; not necessarily a reaction to the terrorism "but rather to the apathy on the part of Muslims." "While I would say that most Muslims probably don't agree with Islamic terror, the things that do seem to genuinely upset them instead (such as cartoons and hijab bans) seem relatively trivial to me. Early on I realized that there is something about Islam that really skews priorities." His work essentially is to simply list the incidents of violence. "The data for the list of attacks is compiled daily from Internet news sources. I try to stick with the more reliable reports – and I do strive for accuracy, although I'm sure the list is far from perfect," he told WND. "For one thing, there is an awful lot that is missed, usually because it isn't reported. The genocide in Darfur is probably the best example. I don't have very many victims listed even though there have been plenty." "Those committing the violence do so explicitly in the name of Islam, which Westerners should find alarming given the rising assertiveness on the part of a growing Muslim minority within our own borders," he said. The sword and whip mentality in Islam also causes him concern. "How can we expect Islam to be of benefit to the West when it can't even produce countries that attract Muslims?" he wondered. His website notes attacks have been documented in Iraq, India, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, New York, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, Chechnya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, England, Thailand, Spain, Egypt, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Pennsylvania, Denmark, Germany, Denmark, Canada and a long list of additional nations totaling more than 60. In a previous interview with Chadd de las Casas at Associated Content, Reinsford said he was prompted to start the work, which he does on a volunteer basis, after a Islamic attack on a Hindu temple in India about a year after 9/11. The massacre generally was ignored by the Western media, "and it occurred to me how common Islamic terror is that such a brutal incident should receive only passing attention," he said. He also credits the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic advocacy group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror funding case. He said he was "repulsed by their lack of moral perspective." The website also honors a "Dhimwit" of the month, which for November was Gen. George Casey for emphasizing the military's "diversity" after a Muslim activist, Nidal Hasan, allegedly shot and killed 13 adults and an unborn baby at Fort Hood in Texas. An earlier honoree was President Obama, for "reaching out" to the Taliban and Iran as well as a variety of other acts. Reinsford said his work is based in factual reporting, and he tries to avoid editorializing. "Not all of Islam is bad, and certainly not all Muslims (or even a majority, for that matter) are bad people. Don't put the agenda before the truth, and always be willing to recognize when your own worldview needs to be adjusted," he said. But he said, "No other religion inspires the sort of terrorism that the 'religion of peace' produces. "We hope that this list offers a dose of perspective against so-called 'Islamophobia' and other Muslim complaints that are petty by comparison. As the site Bare Naked Islam puts it, 'It isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you.'" WND
 This is the time of the year that the air is filled with everything Christmas. There is something for everyone: gifts for family and friends, prayers at churches, and Christmas music everywhere. It puts me in a contemplative mood, particularly when I hear the delightful Christian refrain, peace on earth, goodwill to men. This is the gift I want. This is my Christmas. When there is peace on earth and all people dispense and receive good will. Yet, I am saddened to see the world as it is, particularly with what Islam is doing to it, which is the exact opposite of working for peace and extending goodwill to all people. My contemplation takes me to the genesis of Islam.
Something I have come to view as a scourge of humanity, and here are a few of my random thoughts about the founder of Islam: the person who launched a religion that has denied peace to mankind right from the start, the person who advanced a religion that began with war, continues with war, and aims to carry on with bloodletting to the end of time. All this makes me think and shake my head in bewilderment. Starting with the premise that an all-knowing powerful God is the creator of this awe-inspiring universe where we humans are an infinitesimally insignificant part of his creation humbles me.
Muslims call this creator Allah—a recast of one of 360 idols in the pre-Islamic Idolatry of Mecca—and attribute numerous superhuman qualities to him. It is awe-inspiring to realize that a being of that description may indeed exist. That leads me to some questions: Why would such an indescribably exalted creator, with his ascribed boundless wisdom and resources, pick an illiterate Bedouin to become his prophet for then and forever? The man himself, Muhammad, admitted in the Quran to his own illiteracy. Yet, Allah persisted in choosing this man? Was Allah bored with the rest of his universe and playing a joke on us helpless mortals? Or was it a case of Allah not being able to get any reasonably literate man to take the job? I don’t have an answer to this or a bevy of other questions and the answers I have seen so far from Muslims are far from satisfactory. I am forced to mark this as one of the enigmas of life and move on to further look into Muhammad, his claims, his life and the way all might come together with Allah’s choreography of our life of drama. Muslims claim that Muhammad was the most perfect man, the kind of saintly man that each and every one of us should adulate and aspire to follow. On the top of their list is the desire to lead their lives in such a way that would please Allah, if they can. Muhammad has done that, Muslims claim. And apparently Allah, in his infinite kindness, does not require the rest of us mortals to do things that we are incapable of doing. And Muhammad has brought us the perfect life manual, the Quran, to help us in our quest, we are told. Besides, a great inducement for me to check Islam out is the promise of eternal life in an indescribably lush sensual paradise of Allah if I make the grade. If I fail, I am told, my forever destination is the dreadful inferno of hell. More at Islam Watch 
 What does it take to make Islam bashers mend their ways? Why don’t these folks come to their senses and see Islam as a religion of peace and praise the God of Abraham for continuing his beneficence on humanity by sending Muhammad to guide and humanize us? Why is it that some people keep criticizing a religion that has nearly 1.5 billion followers throughout the world? Now, if this faith was indeed what its detractors claim it is, wouldn’t these masses of people see through it and dump it? Didn’t our very own President go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn’t he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn’t he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred?
Didn’t he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn’t he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn’t he appoint a raft of “devoted” Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?
Even ignoring the President’s behavior and pronouncements, we have numberless others in the know such as politicians, media experts, academics and what nots who keep preaching to us that Islam is indeed a sanctified religion wrongly vilified by a bunch of hatemongers.
After all, its very name means peace. How could anyone possibly have anything but praise for a religion called peace? What is more precious than peace?
Exacerbated, the champions of the religion of peace bemoan: what does it take to convince the detractors of Islam to stop their unceasing effort to present a distorted image of this wonderful world-encircling religion?
Well, just a few problems that makes taking the President’s remarks and actions, as well as all the other Islamic apologists and know-it-alls, difficult.
* Claiming “Islam” means “peace” is fraudulent to begin with. Islam is an Arabic word. And the word for peace in Arabic is “solh,” and not Islam. Islam is derived from the root word “taslim,” which means submission or surrender. Hence, Islam’s true name, surrender, is in fact most descriptive of what it is: total, unconditional submission and surrender of the individual and the community to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by his “rasool,” messenger, Muhammad.
* Further proof of the fraudulent nature of billing Islam as a religion of peace is the irrefutable fact that Muhammad himself led his followers during his lifetime in 78 battles, only one of which was defensive in nature
* Perusing the religion of peace’s holy book, the Quran, taken by Muslims as the literal revelation of Allah, reads more like a manual of intolerance and war than a divinely-revealed prescription from a benevolent God for a life of brotherhood and peace.
Quran 2:216 "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."
Quran 8:65 "O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"
* Deeds speak louder than words. From its very inception, Islam was a movement of violence.
Violence both within its ranks as well as against the non-Muslims has been the unceasing practice. The minute Muhammad died, jockeying for power among his disciples led to numberless murders and battles. The faith of peace never saw peace even within its own ranks and never allowed the rest of the world any peace at all by lashing out to other lands near and far.
* A quick scan of the daily news shows the adherent of the religion of peace engaged in unspeakable acts of mayhem and murder in much of the world.
There is hardly any need to allude to them here. But the Islamists have an answer for that too.
Islam is not responsible, they say. It is only a bunch of opportunists who commit these acts for their own political and economic objectives.
We are to believe that those daily suicide bombers explode their vests in the midst of marketplaces, funeral processions, and even mosques are doing so to further their own personal agenda. More at Amil Imani
 Dr Sami Alrabaa Peace in the Middle East must wait another 50-100 years to become a reality. By then, all the current Arab dictators would be dead, oil and petrodollar have dwindled, and radical Muslims dead or at least tired. What has Tony Blair, former British prime minister, achieved since his appointment, in July 2007, as special envoy of the Middle East Peace "Quartet" (comprised of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia)? Nothing. What has the former U.S. senator, George Mitchell, achieved since assuming his job as the United States Special envoy for the Middle East in January 22, 2009? Nothing. What have all those Western officials, including Xavier Solana, the Foreign Relations of European Union Coordinator, have achieved through their shuttle diplomacy to the Middle East? Again, nothing. In the meantime, while the European Union injects billions of dollars in a corrupt Palestinian Authority, the oil Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, and Libya, support Muslim terrorists with their petrodollars across the globe. Nevertheless, the West still believes that it can help the Israelis and Arabs strike a peace deal. While Western officials and Western media blast Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the Burmese Junta for their dismal political and human rights record and call them dictators, they do not do the same with Abdullahs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Moroccan Hassan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Gaddafi of Libya. They are “kings” and “leaders,” not despotic dictators, although they rule undemocratically and tread on human rights with their feet. I wonder if Western officials and Western media realize that Arab leaders are unique demagogues and have always been so. I also wonder if these bodies check out the Arab media. Day in and day out, the Arab media, which most Arabs voraciously consume, highlight deficits of Western policies and practices in the Muslim world. Torturing terrorists by the CIA and killing civilians in Afghanistan by NATO troops are widely reported. The thousands of political prisoners in Arab jails who are tortured day and night for demanding democracy and human rights are rarely reported about by Arab media. Why should they? Everybody knows that torture of dissidents is quite normal in Arab jails.
There is nothing sensational about that. Read more here,,,, Source: Islam Watch H/T: Gramfan Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. He has taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post
 By Dr. Arash Irandoost | August 15 Many of you have been busy circulating numerous petitions to the United Nations regarding the brutality of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please do not waste your precious time any longer, hoping for a miracle to happen from this incompetent, corrupt, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic organization. Since June 12, 2009, despite numerous petitions signed by Iranians and submitted to the UN, there has not been any strong condemnation from this pro-Islamist organization regarding the criminal conduct of this medieval regime against its own citizens. Don’t just take my word for it, please do your own research on this organization and how it functions. The UN is an organization rife with incompetence, corruption, and mismanagement.The Iranian people are simply hopeless and helpless and the United Nations does not come to their rescue. Mass public hanging, as well as secret executions in prisons, are routine in the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran. From its past performance, rather its absence of performance, we know that the UN watchdog is a true disgrace to dogs, since all it does is eat, sleep and look the other way. Furthermore, the dog has no teeth. The vet had to pull all its teeth before the dog became acceptable to the crafty cats that constitute the UN itself. The founding purpose of the UN was to “bring peace and prosperity to the people of the world". The UN in the age of terror and blatant human rights violations by many countries such as Burma, China and Iran, has failed miserably to meet its obligation and its purpose. The UN programs which was set up to help the Palestinians over the past half-century, have not only failed to produce decent lives, but have helped create a culture of hate and violence–fueled in large part by the UN's own anti-Israel agenda. It is not uncommon to hear anti-Israeli rhetoric in the hallways of the United Nations. You have heard frequent complaining and condemnation from the UN that the self-admitted terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo are being denied their human rights, or defenseless Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers, yet the UN has no time to speak out against documented human rights violating thugs in Iran. The UN has ignored the alarming surge in assassinations, rapes, killings, torture and the massive crackdown that the Islamic Republic has launched against pro-democracy activists. Read more here ...Source: New Media Journal
The status of Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state is a red line that no Palestinian leader is permitted to cross, President Mahmoud Abbas' ruling Fatah faction declared in the West Bank on Saturday. According to Israel Radio, the Fatah general conference, which convened in Bethlehem for a three-day gathering, adopted a position paper which also states that the Palestinian national enterprise will not reach fruition until all of Jerusalem, including the outlying villages, come under Palestinian sovereignty. Fatah, which rules the West Bank but was ousted from power in Gaza by the Islamist Hamas movement, also ruled out any interim agreements with Israel. "Fatah will continue to sacrifice victims until Jerusalem will be returned [to the Palestinians], clean of settlements and settlers," the paper states. Read more ...Source: HaaretzH/T: Jihad Watch
By Barry Rubin As so often happens, the debate over Fatah’s policy misses the point. The central issue has become Fatah’s theme of saying it wants peace but it is ready to go to resistance, that is, armed struggle. Those who want to stress how moderate and ready for peace Fatah is, dismiss this as sheer rhetoric, a terrible mistake. Those who wish to point out Fatah’s continued extremism suggest that the group is about to return to battle. The problem, however, is not that Fatah retains the option of armed struggle but a policy which makes it far more likely that violence will return or, at best, stagnation will reign. In other words, when the PA or Fatah say they want peace it is less a trick than it is an extremely low priority. After all, it is possible to argue honestly—though it is still debatable--that Fatah is now a status quo power, happy to rule the West Bank and to get massive amounts of aid money to enrich its leaders. What is not possible is to argue honestly that Fatah is an active force for obtaining a comprehensive peace. But before discussing these points, recall a famous moment that the Fatah Congress and the speech of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority (PA) leader echoes. Read more ...Source: Gloria Center
 Hopeful ... young guests wait for Barack Obama to make his speech at Cairo University / AP
PRESIDENT Barack Obama has vowed to forge a "new beginning'' for Islam and the US in a landmark speech to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.
In what may be a defining moment of his presidency, Mr Obama laid out a new blueprint for US Middle East policy, vowing to buckle mistrust, forge a state for Palestinians and defuse a nuclear showdown with Iran.
In the Great Hall of Cairo University, Mr Obama warned the US bond with Israel, the source of much Arab distrust of the United States, was unbreakable, and rejected "ignorant'' rants by those who deny the Nazi Holocaust.
But, in a sharp break from the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush, Mr Obama also rebuked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to halt settlement expansion on the West Bank.
"I have come here to Cairo seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,'' Mr Obama said in a speech shown on television and on social networking sites.
"So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace."
Letting divides fester would "promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity", he said.
"This cycle of suspicion and discord must end," he said, vowing to fight "negative stereotypes" of Islam wherever they appear.
"But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America."
The US President, laying out a staggeringly ambitious foreign policy to match the audacity of his sweeping domestic program, spoke directly, and without adornment on the chasms between the US and Muslims.
Specifically targeting young Muslims, perhaps not bound to past traditions, Mr Obama said: "I know there are many - Muslim and non Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning.''
"Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilisations are doomed to clash.
"There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward.''
Mr Obama called on Israelis and Palestinians to revive stalled peace talks, demanding Palestinians halt violence and Israelis to ease the plight of those trapped in the occupied territories.
"Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed,'' he said.
"America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
He called on both sides to live up to obligations under the stalled "roadmap'' for Middle East peace.
"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's,'' he said.
"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.''
The US president also renewed his offer for dialogue with arch-US foe Iran, over, after a decades-long Cold War style conflict.
"It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve,'' Mr Obama said.
"But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point.
"This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the
Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.'' Source: The Australian
By Charles Krauthammer "Apart from the time restriction (a truce that lapses after 10 years) and the refusal to accept Israel's existence, Mr. Meshal's terms approximate the Arab League peace plan ..." -- Hamas peace plan, as explained by the New York Times"Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" -- Tom Lehrer, satiristThe Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide -- Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate. Read more ...Source: The Washington Post
May 11 Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
Executive Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism The Durban Review Conference held by the United Nations in Geneva last month featured peace offerings to radical Islam. Specifically, it provided a platform for the ignorant blustering of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and for an unsuccessful campaign by Saudi Arabia to criminalize critical expression about religion. Although Ahmadinejad framed his denunciations as castigation of all the world’s ruling elite, his favored target was Israel. And while the Saudi campaign against “defamation of prophets” is phrased as a defense of all the monotheistic religions, it is clear the effort, which will doubtless be ongoing, is intended to suppress discussion of extremism and other problematical aspects of contemporary Islam. The Geneva meeting also enabled the dictatorships of Libya and Cuba, along with that of Iran, to usurp presumptive responsibility for the global defense of human rights. Some might leap to the assumption that the UN, and especially its Western European members, take such a position out of weakness in the face of an expansive and aggressive Islam. But UN pusillanimity when facing tyrannical arrogance is nothing new and did not begin with Islamic issues, notwithstanding the powerful influence in the world body of the Arab and other Muslim energy states. The UN in Geneva has faithfully maintained the syndrome observed in its predecessor, the League of Nations; both were created to secure peace, rather than freedom. This reflects a dissonance between Europe, which historically favored peace over freedom, and America, which has supported freedom over peace. The American-European contradiction over freedom and peace has remained an unchanging paradigm, reflected in the failure of the League of Nations through appeasement of the fascist dictators, and the many and various misadventures of the UN. In the name of peace, rather than the freedom of an elected liberal government, the League of Nations imposed a naval embargo on the Spanish Republic, contributing to its defeat in that country’s civil war. A desire for peace caused the French to surrender to the Germans. Love of peace drove the Dutch to provide the largest number of foreign volunteers to the Waffen-SS and hand over to Hitler’s minions the biggest national percentage of Western European Jews to die in the Holocaust. For the same reasons, Stalin was allowed to occupy half of Europe and granted three seats in the UN. As described in Geneva last month by my journalistic colleague, Khaled Abu Toameh, the UN and the European leaders of the so-called “international community,” by financing the corrupt Palestinian Authority, imposed a “peace agreement” on Israelis and Arabs that has failed to secure freedom for either nation. But the evils of the UN in the Israeli-Arab chapter of Middle East history are old news. Everybody has heard of “war crimes” - but “peace crimes” can be more devastating, and more permanent. The UN has refused to act on Tibet, denying any assistance to a people demanding freedom from Chinese imperialism. During the Bosnian war of 1992-95, the Europeans and the UN reproduced exactly their attitudes toward the American and Spanish civil wars - they succeeded, in the interest of peace, in continuing the partition of Bosnia-Hercegovina and maintaining a mafia state, the so-called “Republika Srpska.” More ...Source: Hudson New York
By David Suissa I’m not sure, but I think I have a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or at least another way of looking at it. It hit me the other day after I broke bread at Pat’s Restaurant with some people connected to Americans for Peace Now, a leftist Jewish organization that actively promotes the two-state solution. Now, you should know that whenever I hear the words “peace now,” something inside of me cringes. I have never understood how Israel could make peace now with an enemy that hates her no matter what she does. Over the years, I’ve asked this question of a number of people across the ideological spectrum: “If Israel dismantled all the settlements in the West Bank tomorrow, would it stop Palestinian hostility and violence toward Israel?” I never once got a yes. Why? I think it’s because most people intuitively understand that dismantling settlements is not the same thing as dismantling hatred. The hatred that has been taught for years in Palestinian schools and summer camps, through television shows and billboards and in mosques is not just aimed at Jewish settlers but at all Jews and at all of Israel. This kind of hatred is too deep to be washed away by well-meaning gestures. So I came to my Peace Now lunch with some apprehension — and a lot of prejudice. I can’t say I connected ideologically with my lunchmates, but I did end up connecting emotionally. The reason was that I trusted their deep commitment to Israel and their sincerity in their search for peace. There was something very Jewish about their attitude toward the conflict. First, the idea of hope, of never giving up. Where would the Jews be today if we didn’t have hope? There was also the idea of taking responsibility for our situation — of not blaming others for our fate. Again, where would the Jewish nation be today without that character trait? My peace-loving lunch companions are not naive. They know about the spread of Jewish hatred in Palestinian society, and they understand the fear many of us have that a Palestinian state could easily become a terrorist state. But they believe the ideals of peace and a two-state solution are so valuable to Jews and to Israel that it is worth pursuing relentlessly, even if it means paying a significant price. It’s this idea of paying a price for peace that made a lightbulb go off. For nearly two decades, Israel has gone to one failed peace meeting after another with this question in mind: How much are we willing to pay for peace? In doing so, they have acted as if the Palestinians actually have something to sell. Apparently, no one ever stood up during one of those meetings to say to the Israelis: “Wait a minute, you’re not the buyers, you’re the sellers!” Why sellers? Because everyone knows that when Israel signs an agreement with an Arab country, it is capable of honoring it. On the other hand, it’s no secret that the Palestinians, with or without Hamas, are in no position to deliver peace to Israel. It follows that if any party should be selling, it is Israel. Yet, incredibly, it is always the reverse: The Palestinians are selling a peace they can’t deliver, while the Israelis are buying a peace that doesn’t exist. Is it any wonder that all the peace plans keep failing? That groups like Peace Now keep banging their heads against the wall, hoping that more concessions from Israel will somehow bring us closer to that elusive solution? The problem with pressuring Israel to buy peace through concessions is that it perpetuates the illusion that the Palestinians have something to sell. What the peace process needs more than anything is for the Palestinians to be able to deliver their end of the bargain. Until that happens, any question of creating a Palestinian state is moot. My solution? Have the sides switch roles or mind-states. Israelis should act like “peace owners,” and Palestinians should act like “peace buyers.” With a buyer mentality, Palestinians will be more likely to make their own offers, rather than passively rejecting Israeli offers, which is what they often do. As buyers, Palestinians would also learn that Israel needs a minimum security deposit: Stop teaching Jew-hatred to your children. Palestinians can’t offer peace while they’re teaching war. Tragically, the anti-incitement clause was the great ignored clause of Oslo — so for more than 15 years, Palestinian society fell back on its habit of demonizing Jews, which contributed to the growth of terrorism and rejectionist forces like Hamas. Israel is hardly blameless in this picture, and it has made its share of mistakes. But settlements or no settlements, the fact remains that the great majority of Israeli Jews have been more than ready to pay a huge price for peace, including evacuating most of the West bank. Had the Palestinians been smart, had they taken more responsibility for their situation and developed a culture of co-existence, they would have long ago made Israel an offer it couldn’t refuse. They would have called Israel’s bluff and made the process real. Instead, we’ve all been treated to the continuing and sorry spectacle of global diplomats parachuting into Jerusalem to coax adversaries into yet another round of the “let’s play peace process” game. Leading the latest charge is our new can-do president, who believes that a solution is possible if only the U.S. becomes more “engaged.” He will soon learn that no amount of American engagement or Israeli concessions can undo the reality that for the foreseeable future, the Palestinians are utterly incapable of delivering peace to Israel. All this, of course, is very sobering for those of us who fear for the future of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. Going forward, the one thing we can be sure of is that groups like Peace Now will continue to pressure Israel to make concessions, and people like me will lament that the whole process is upside down. David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine, Meals4Israel.com and Ads4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org. Source: Jewish Journal H/T: Tundra Tabloids
 Al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations have all perfected the use of deception to advance Islamist goals.By Raymond Ibrahim War is eternalThe fact that Islam legitimizes deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; as the saying goes, all’s fair in love and war. Moreover, non-Muslim thinkers and philosophers, such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, all justified deceit in war. The crucial difference, however, is that, according to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity — until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states: The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict. Read more ... Source: Pajamas Media
To defeat the aims of radical Muslims, the West must understand the role of deception in Islamic warfare.Editor’s note: Substantial portions of the following essay make up part of Mr. Ibrahim’s forthcoming written testimony to be presented to Congress.By Raymond Ibrahim Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world - from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran - the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that, after openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also pursues “peace treaties,” including various forms of concessions from Israel - and more puzzling, receives them? Read more ... Source: Pajamas Media
 By Charles Krauthammer
Israel's leaders have purposely obscured their war aims in Gaza. But there are only two possible endgames: (A) a Lebanon-like cessation of hostilities to be supervised by international observers, or (B) the disintegration of Hamas rule in Gaza.
Under tremendous international pressure — including from an increasingly wobbly U.S. State Department — the government of Ehud Olmert has begun hinting that it is receptive to a French-Egyptian cease-fire plan, essentially acquiescing to Endgame A.
That would be a terrible mistake.
It would fail on its own terms. It would have the same elements as the phony peace in Lebanon: an international force that abjures any meaningful use of force, an arms embargo under which arms will most assuredly flood in, and a cessation of hostilities until the terrorist side is rearmed and ready to initiate the next round of hostilities.
The U.N.-mandated disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon is a well-known farce. Not only have foreign forces not stopped Hezbollah's massive rearmament. Their very presence makes it impossible for Israel to take any preventive military action, lest it accidentally hit a blue-helmeted Belgian crossing guard.
The "international community" is now pushing very hard for a replay in Gaza of that charade. Does anyone imagine that international monitors will risk their lives to prevent weapons smuggling? To arrest terrorists? To engage in shootouts with rocket-launching teams attacking Israeli civilians across the Gaza border?
Of course not. Weapons will continue to be smuggled. Deeper and more secure fortifications will be built for the next round. Mosques, schools and hospitals will again be used for weapons storage and terrorist safe havens. Do you think French "peacekeepers" are going to raid them?
Which is why the only acceptable outcome of this war, both for Israel and for the civilized world, is Endgame B: the disintegration of Hamas rule. It is already under way.
This is not about killing every last Hamas gunman. Not possible, not necessary. Regimes rule not by physically overpowering every person in their domain, but by getting the majority to accept their authority. That is what sustains Hamas, and that is what is now under massive assault.
Hamas' leadership is not only seriously degraded but openly humiliated. The great warriors urging others to martyrdom are cowering underground almost entirely incommunicado. Demonstrably unable to protect their own people, they beg for outside help, receiving in return nothing but words from their Arab and Iranian brothers.
And who in fact is providing the corridors for humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians? Israel.
In the first four minutes of this war, the Israel Air Force destroyed 50 targets, taking down practically every instrument and symbol of Hamas rule. Gaza's Potemkin leaders were marginalized and rendered helpless, leaving their people to fend for themselves.
At such moments, regimes are extremely vulnerable to forfeiting what the Chinese call the mandate of heaven, the sense of legitimacy that undergirds all forms of governance.
The fall of Hamas rule in Gaza is within reach, but only if Israel does not cave in to pressure to stop now. Overthrowing Hamas would not require a permanent Israeli reoccupation.
A transitional international force would be brought in to immediately make way for the return of the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate government whose forces will be far less squeamish than the Europeans in establishing order in Gaza.
The disintegration of Hamas rule in Gaza would be a devastating blow to Palestinian rejectionists, who since the Hamas takeover of Gaza have been the ascendant "strong horse" in Palestinian politics.
It would be a devastating blow to Iran as patron of radical Islamist movements throughout the region, particularly after the defeat and marginalization of Iran's Sadrist client in Iraq. It would encourage the moderate Arab states to continue their U.S.-allied confrontation of Iran and its proxies. And it would demonstrate Israel's irreplaceable strategic value to the U.S. in curbing and containing Iran's regional ambitions.
Olmert had such an opportunity in Lebanon. He blew it. He now has a rare second chance. The one-step-from-madness gangster theocracy in Gaza — just four days before the fighting, the Hamas parliament passed a Shariah criminal code, legalizing, among other niceties, crucifixion — is teetering on the brink.
It can be brought down, but only if Israel is prepared — and allowed — to complete the real mission of this war. For the Bush State Department, in its last significant act, to prevent that with the premature imposition of a cease-fire would be not just self-defeating but shameful. Source: IBD Editorials
 By Aijaz Zaka Syed
This is perhaps the only spectacle of its kind on the planet; the sea of humanity constantly surging, swirling and revolving around a square majestic structure. This ritual has been going on for thousands of years following in the footsteps of Prophet Abraham.
The sight of men and women in white going around the black-robed Kaaba during the annual Hajj and at other times throughout the year never ceases to awe, inspire and fascinate. There's not a more majestic and humbling sight in the whole wide world.
You don't have to be a believer or even get close to the Kaaba to be part of the surreal, inexplicable experience. No one remains unmoved and unaffected by the sight of the faithful from all parts and corners of the world - black and white, tall and short and rich and poor - submit themselves before God as equals in the brotherhood of faith and humanity.
As Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of the U.S. Congress who performed Hajj this week, told CNN, you forget who you are - black or white and American or African - and where you come from when you are before God circling the Kaaba in a two-piece unstitched garment.
Indeed, nothing else celebrates the oneness of humanity and universal brotherhood as the Hajj does when more than 3 million pilgrims from around the world undertake the journey of a lifetime to the holy city of Mecca.
Interestingly, the Hajj does not commemorate something the Prophet of Islam did or ordained. By undertaking this passage to Mecca, mandatory for everyone who can afford it, Muslims retrace the historic journey of Prophet Abraham and his immortal sacrifice near the Kaaba thousands of years ago.
Abraham is greatly respected by the Jews and Christians. All Jewish prophets and Jesus Christ are related to the Patriarch who came from Iraq. He is also revered by Muslims as the architect of the Holy Kaaba along with his son Ishmael (Ismael to Muslims) and ancestor of the Last Prophet.
By retracing and reliving Abraham's journey, pilgrims experience his unquestioning faith and willingness to sacrifice what was most precious to him, his only and beloved son when ordained by God in a dream. How Ishmael was rescued last minute is a separate and equally fascinating story.
What really interests me is how the three great monotheistic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - are inextricably linked to each other and are united in Abraham.
Notwithstanding the long history of crusades and conflicts spanning several centuries, the three religions have much more in common than their followers care to admit.
Listening to the Eid sermon from the Grand Mosque in Mecca this week, one was once again struck by the number of references to the prophets and scriptures that are sacred to both Christian and Jewish people as well as Muslims.
Why is the world then ignorant or not adequately aware of this aspect of Islam - this all-embracing quality of the much-maligned and misunderstood faith? In fact, today not even many Muslims are familiar with this generous spirit of tolerance and acceptance that suffuses their faith. Or at least once did.
Later that day, Eid night rather, during my restless channel surfing, I came across "The Message," the 1976 magnum opus of Moustapha Akkad about early Islam on local television network. Akkad, known mostly for his Halloween movies, later produced another landmark epic in "Omar Mukhtar: The Lion of Desert," played with great panache by the inimitable Anthony Quinn.
The gifted Arab American filmmaker somehow manages to capture the true spirit and character of Islam in "The Message" despite the ideological and religious red lines that constantly challenged him.
Akkad, who introduced Islam to Hollywood without stereotyping it and championed its humane message in movie after movie, was killed in a terror attack in Amman in November 2005. Tragic irony or what?
While nothing can perhaps ever do justice to recounting the ordeal of early Muslims in Arabia, "The Message" featuring greats like Quinn, who plays the Prophet's uncle Hamza in the cult movie, comes closest to offering a rare insight into how Islam won over the Arabs to spread far and wide within two decades of its dawn.
The force of the unlettered Prophet's own extraordinary personality epitomizing the universal message he brought swept Arabia and beyond in his own lifetime.
After the Prophet's death, it was not the cutting edge of Islam's sword - as many like to believe - but the revolutionary nature of its message and its liberating teachings that conquered the world and hearts and minds everywhere; the message championing the unity of God and humanity and preaching simple but universal basics like honesty, equality, justice and above all accountability for one's actions.
It was this revolutionary message that opened doors for the early Muslims wherever they went - from Persia to Spain and from India to Indonesia.
Contrary to what its many detractors allege, Islam did not spread to far corners of Asia, Africa and Europe riding on the military conquests of the Mughals, Turks and Afghans but thanks to the endearing simplicity, honesty and truthfulness of Arab spice traders who were enthusiastically welcomed on the coasts of Kerala, Malaya and Java.
Today as this great faith increasingly comes under attack from within and without and a tiny fringe of extremists pretends to speak on its behalf, it's time to go back to basics. There's never been a greater need to revisit and reinvent Islam's universal and humane message.
We can confront historical injustices and grievances and the centuries of exploitation long inflicted on the Muslim world only by returning to the benevolent and just teachings of this faith. You cannot deal with injustice by greater injustice. Only the force of justice can take on injustice. Two wrongs can never make a right.
Targeting and victimization of innocents to avenge historical wrongs is not only morally repugnant but also violates the fundamental teachings of our Prophet and the spirit of Islam and all that it stands for.
From Palestine to Iraq and from the Middle East to the Far East, Muslims can find peace and justice only by following the path of peace and justice. There's no other way. Wrong means cannot take us to right causes. It's time to revisit and rediscover our faith. It's time to go back to basics.
(Aijaz Zaka Syed is Opinion Editor of Khaleej Times.) Source: Muslim World Today
 Elaph: "How do you see the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict?" Amin Al-Mahdi: "...This conflict [started] when the Arab regimes rejected the international resolutions. Israel accepted the [1947 U.N.] Partition [Plan for Palestine], while the Arabs rejected it. Israel accepted [U.N.] Resolution 194, [passed in 1948], which called for the return of the [Palestinian] refugees... while Arabs rejected this [resolution]. The Arabs have a way of rejecting [proposals] and then accepting them when they are no longer relevant... when the circumstances have changed and the resolution has been completely forgotten. "The [Arab-Israeli] conflict serves the oppressive Arab regimes. The question is this: When will we see [the end of] the expansionist forces on the Israeli Right, and, on the other hand, the end of the oppressive Arab regimes? As I explained in my book on the Arab-Israeli conflict, [these two questions] are interrelated. Peace and democracy are not separate issues. When democracy comes to the Arab world, the expansionist forces in Israel will also cease to exist, and there will be peace. When Arab citizens receive their freedoms, there will be peace between the Arabs and Israel." Read more ... Source: MEMRI
ISRAELI Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's bid to replace outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has received an early boost with a poll showing she would lead the centre-right Kadima party to an election win over arch-rivals Likud. The poll conducted for an Israeli newspaper showed the ambitious 49-year-old would be the only Kadima candidate who could roll hard-right Likud stalwart Benjamin Netanyahu, who will be aiming for a second term as Israeli leader when a general election is called some time late this year. Mr Netanyahu has dominated media polling since January, on the back of Mr Olmert's ailing premiership and his hardline stance against Iran, as well as opposing peace talks with Syria and refusing to cede East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Mr Olmert's decision to resign as Prime Minister after the primary nominations for the Kadima leadership in September is seen as an invigorating tonic to the Israeli political scene. However, Palestinian leaders yesterday also decried it as a mortal blow to the peace process. Several Palestinian leaders, among them chief negotiator with Israel Saeb Erekat and President Mahmoud Abbas said Mr Olmert no longer had a mandate to strike a deal with the Palestinian Authority. They also said that only Ms Livni among his mooted replacements had the political impetus and commitment to pick up the reins of the peace process. Before Mr Olmert's surprise announcement on Wednesday, Ms Livni had continued to lay down her credentials as a leader by revealing for the first time her past as a Mossad officer in the early 1980s. "I served in Mossad from 1980 to 1984 and worked overseas in several postings with them," she said. "But when I got married, I quickly found service like that wasn't compatible with married life." National security credentials are considered essential to holding high public office in Israel and Ms Livni's remarks follow strategic media leaks several months ago that briefly outlined her past as an intelligence officer. The Weekend Australian has learned through independent sources that Ms Livni served mainly in Paris with a Mossad support unit, which took care of the organisation's assets and ran its safehouses. "She was tasked with doing things like turning up to safe houses, turning the lights on and off, doing the dishes and generally making sure that the neighbours thought all was normal in the apartment next door," said a former intelligence official familiar with the Foreign Minister's past. "She also played a support role in operations against Palestinians in Paris, but was never a trigger person." Ms Livni is close to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and has reaffirmed in the past few days that she is keen to drive the peace process with the Palestinians if she is elected leader. "We have made efforts this year to reach an agreement with the Palestinians and we will continue to do so," she said. "I am here now as Israel's Foreign Minister and I can promise you that I also intend to represent Israel's interests in future." Source: The Australian
WASHINGTON: The US, Israel and the Palestinians agreed in talks today to strive for a Middle East peace deal without any 'shortcuts', Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. The parties also regarded Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's announced resignation as an internal matter that would not dampen negotiations for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. “We will not opt for an option of partial agreements, shortcuts or anything short of a full agreement on all issues,” Mr Erekat told reporters after he and chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qorei held talks with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. There have been reports that Dr Rice, who is to travel to the Middle East next month, is anxious to get the two sides to agree on a document of understanding on some key issues, such as borders for a Palestinian state and the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Such a document was on the cards ahead of the UN General Assembly session in September, some reports suggested, amid growing pessimism about a peace breakthrough before President George W. Bush leaves the White House in January 2009. Without citing these reports, Mr Erekat said, “Let everybody understand that we are negotiating the issues of Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security, prisoners and water and we want to achieve an agreement on all issues or no agreement.” “And this was agreed” at the trilateral talks, he said. The Israelis and Palestinians committed to forging a comprehensive deal by the end of 2008 during a conference Mr Bush hosted in Annapolis, Maryland, in November. Dr Rice, who has criss-crossed the Middle East since then to forge the deal, described the talks today as “very fruitful”. She acknowledged the difficulty of achieving a peace deal by the end of the year as targeted, but she noted growing recognition that the Palestinian question should be resolved swiftly for regional security. “The Middle East is not going to get better without the creation of a Palestinian state to live side-by-side with Israel in peace, security and democracy,” she said yesterday. “It simply isn't going to get better. And so the question is, if not now, when?” she said. Source: The Australian
By Noa Bursie I recently read an article published in the online magazine, Family Security Matters, written by Rachel Lipsky. The article examines the Yoga concepts of Ahimsa (non-violence) and Satya (truthfulness) in the context of how people perceive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it inspired me to comment herein. As an educator, I endeavor to teach my students to think critically, and arrive at an informed opinion based on rigorous examination of the information available together with specific protocols for weighing and judging that data. Of the many conundrums that present themselves within this conflict, the most disturbing by far (and the one that must be answered unequivocally before any sort of peace process may begin) is: what precisely do Palestinians want? One might indulge further to add: what concrete actions are being taken by their leadership to find a just and viable solution in order to resolve the problem(s) that exist? Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
By Bob Unruh
Posts
