Two-edged sword Germans rally Against Islamists, Are Jews to be next

 

The headline on the RT site reads Thousands in Dresden rally against Islamization, call for Western values.

The article led off with the following two paragraphs:

Thousands took to the streets of Dresden, Germany, to protest the Islamization of their country. Their opponents also rallied at the same time warning about spreading xenophobic ideas in Europe.

At least 10,000 people joined the march of Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of Europe, or PEGIDA, a German right-wing organization. The protesters say they want to preserve Germany’s Judeo-Christian Western culture, and curb the spread of Islamic State and Al-Qaeda activities in the EU.

Dresden is not the only city in Germany swept by similar protests. Anti-Islam rallies were held in Cologne, Hanover, Kassel, and Chemnitz.

My problem with the rally is that I fear the German's xenophobia will spread once again to anyone who is "different" from a "good" German, i.e., white and Christian.

I agree that the Islamists are taking over Europe and North America as well, but the Europeans generally know no restrictions on attacking anyone who is not a "pure" national: Islamists today, Jews tomorrow.

It's not just Germany. Hungary embraced the nazis; likewise Poland. Russia, at war with the nazis, didn't allow that to interfere with pogroms. During World War II, the United States, with its own severe case of xenophobia put its Japanese citizens into prison camps and refused entry to Jewish refugees. (Nazi prisoners in Stockton CA faired better than the Issei (immigrants) and Nisei (American-born) Japanese-Americans.)

For information about how America traded its Japanese citizens, go to Japanese American on Wikipedia.

While PEGIDA claims it distances itself from neo-Nazi groups in Germany. it "refuses to allow the spread of activities by groups such as the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda in Europe.

Already opposing PEGIDA, according to the RT article are members of Christian churches, the Islamic center, the Jewish community, the Foreign Residents' Association and students.

The nazis' targets were "Jews and Marxists" (a/k/a Communists). While the Jews, at least, were Germans of long standing, and many decorated for service during World War I, the nazis - like the U.S. government in its view of its Japanese citizens - considered the Jews as anything BUT German citizens. (The nazis also went after Roma (Gypsies), the old and infirm, the mentally weak, and sexual deviants.)

Now we see a movement against Islamists and while I generally support removal of people who would over-throw a more or less democratic government, PEGIDA's stance and the behavior of some of its followers is frightening.

There has to be a well-considered middle ground between the likes of PEGIDA and the liberals of the Christian churches, the Islamic center, the Jewish community, the Foreign Residents' Association and students.

As long as "good" Muslims remain silent when their fellow Muslims commit atrocities non-Muslims will view all Muslims as Islamic terrorists, and THAT is what gives organizations like PEGIDA its reason to exist - unfortunately, who can, who will, limit such groups to terrorists else it , too, becomes a terrorist organization.

Thin line, scary line.

All Muslims jihadists?

The advertisement:

"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel/Defeat Jihad,"
(See http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5835 )

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Metropolitan Transportation Authority banned the advertisement by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, claiming the ad violated the Authority's policy against "demeaning language."

In July, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ad was protected speech. While agreeing with the MTA that the ad was "demeaning a group of people based on religion," Engelmayer ruled that the ad promoter was entitled to the "highest level of protection under the First Amendment."

According to Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, "It's like the anti-Islam film that is creating controversy. It is designed to offend, designed to provoke."

QUESTION: How is equating savagery with jihad anti-Muslim?

Are all Muslims jihadists?

That has to be a reasonable person's assumption based on the CAIR spokesperson's statement.

What is "demeaning" about the advertisement to Muslims?

Again, if the ad is "demeaning" to Muslims, the obvious suggestion is that all Muslims are savage jihadists.

By their acts we have proof that the jihadists are savages: the recent attacks on embassies and (in Israel) consulates - since the U.S. presidents have so far ignored Congress' instruction to relocate the embassy from Tel Av iv to Jerusalem - and the resent attack on a kosher market in France (why a kosher market - an Egyptian Coptic made the film the Muslims don't like and the magazine the Muslims dislike is not a Jewish publication). Never mind the rocket attacks on Israel, the suicide murders in Israel and elsewhere, and the bombings and attempted bombings of aircraft. Ignore, too, September 11, 2001.

Granted, "savages" is a relative word.

By Western standards, the jihadists' acts are savagery. But by Muslim standards, ahh, here we have the issue.

Different mentalities.

Worse, Western politicians bow to the alter of "Political Correctness," never calling a spade a spade - or a jihadists a savage.

I have railed in the past about the silence of the "good" Muslims; the ones who after each atrocity remain silent, not condemning the act but, by their silence, condoning it.

Now, thanks to the CAIR spokesperson, I know that all Muslims must by definition be jihadists, else why would CAIR object to equating "jihadists" - not "Muslims," but only "jihadists" - as "savages.

Tarred and feathered by their own words.

If I was a Jew in Bloomberg's New York I think I would be extra cautious and demand a police escort when I went to services on Shabat and Yom Kippor (since in Bloomberg's New York only criminals - including jihadists - are allowed to have guns).

PALESTINE - 1695

 

A person who I like to consider a friend sent me a link the other day that is worth sharing with "The World," both Jewish and non-Jewish.

The link, http://www.think-israel.org/goldreich.palestina.html, is to an article titled A Tour Of Palestine; The Year Is 1695.

The article is presented both in English and Hebrew.

The article, originally in Hebrew, was written by Avi Goldreich and translated into English by Nurit Greenger. Both Hebrew and English text is online.

The bottom line is that when a man by the name of Hadriani Relandi toured what was temporarily known as "Palestine" he discovered, and recorded the fact, that the land was almost totally Moslem-free.

There were, Relandi reports, Bedu but most other Arabs were Christians. Relandi's work even includes an unofficial census of several major communities of the time. In every case, Jews were the majority.

Relandi's work also throws into disrepute the Muslim's claim to settling cities of antiquity (that is, before 1695).

The Goldreich/Greenger copy is not included on this blog since I was unable to ascertain if the work is copyrighted.

Suffice it to write that it IS worth clicking on the link (above).

הריני מקבל עלי מצוה עשה של ואהבת לרעך כמוך, והריני אוהב כל אחד מבני ישראל כנפשי ומאודי

Dog barks, world cowers

 

'Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute'

Funny enough, this phrase, uttered on June 18, 1798 by one Robert Goodloe Harper, a Federalist representative to the U.S. House and Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, was not about Islamist pirates off the Barbary Coast of Africa but against the French who were trying to extort a £50,000 bribe and force the U.S. to make a large loan to the French government for the French to cease attacks on U.S. vessels. (http://tinyurl.com/65wk55e)

According to Islam's War Against The West, the expression gained new popularity by 1800 when the attacks on U.S. vessels was carried out by Islamist terrorists of the era. (http://tinyurl.com/3guufl4)

Nothing new

The "Millions for defense..." phrase came to mind as I was reading an article titled Palestinians' Shoe-Throwing Extortion by Khaled Abu Toameh (http://tinyurl.com/64o9wko).

Both Toameh's article and Islam's War Against The West (ibid.) take note of the fact that in regard to Moslem mentality, nothing has changed - in centuries.

Islam's War Against The West takes Islam's history back to 640 CE, long before the current crop of Islamists took up the banner of jihad.

As Solomon allegedly said, אין שם חדש תחת השמש (there's nothing new under the sun).

Toameh wonders why governments allow their representatives to be abused by beggars.

The current crop of extortionists, the so called "Palestinian Authority" terrorist organizations, is, Toameh opines, telling the U.S. that "If you do not endorse our position and if you cut off financial aid, we will turn against you."

To the shores of Tripoli

Do I hear an echo of Solomon's words?

""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás was right when he said that and he is correct today.

The United States, particularly under recent administrations, seems to think that it can "westernize" the Islamists they way it and its allies "westernized" - less or more - the Japanese.

The difference is, the Japanese after World War 2 were absolutely crushed, and when they did start to recover, they realized they were part of a commercial world that they could extort "within the rules." That is about China's position today; modifying a steel company's slogan by changing one letter to "Steal when you want it."

Some mentalities are hard to change.

The Moslem mentality is one. The German mentality - at least in the "homeland" - is another.

A correspondent wrote the other day regarding the increasing demands of Islamists in France (and the foolishness of that country's political leader) that the Muslims want their own courts, that they want Halal food in public schools or to have their own goveernment-funded schools, that they want their own domestic and criminal courts, and they want to live in their own communities.

I responded that we - Jews - want basically the same things.

The Moslems simply are aping Jewish desires. Even sharia - Islamic law - is based on Torah and rabbinic law, but with the vast difference that Jewish law has progressed from its ancient ways. Even in Israel, where Jews could implement laws of the Torah, stoning, beheadings, garroting, and 39 lashes are only matters of historical interest, not modern jurisprudence. Sharia drags primitive punishment into the 21st century.

My non-Jewish correspondent pointed out that while my presentation of (observant) Judaism is correct, the people who practice it are tolerant of those who do not (Jews and non-Jews alike) and we - Jews - have, less or more, integrated into the societies in which we live. Unlike the Islamists, we are not isolationists, certainly not by choice.

I fail to see any way to identify an "Islamist" from a "moderate Moslem" - are moderates the ones in the street protesting outrageous Islamist behavior? No, but only because there are no moderate Moslems in the street protesting.

The question remains

Why, given the lessons of history - a very long history at that - does the U.S. try to appease the Islamists.

Why does the country's chief executive bow to Saudi royalty? (Oil, of course, and maybe a dose of fear of a country to which the U.S. sends its soldiers to protect.)

Why does the country, despite threats, insist on supporting - financially if not completely politically - a non-entity that has as it's primary goal to wipe an ally - one of a very few trusted allies - off the map and drive its non-Moslem population into the sea ... that means Jews, of course, but also Christians and Buddhists and whomever else Israel has extended sanctuary?

Will the U.S.' leadership ever find the intestinal fortitude to stand up to extortionists and to make the phrase "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" once again the watchword of a proud nation.

Protect us But don't ask our help

 

I live in southeast Florida.

My #1 son is a cop in west central Florida.

We have, in my area of the state, a great deal of crime, including drive by shootings which seem to happen with increasing frequency. Very young children often are the innocent victims.

Much of the crime is "black on black"; both the perpetrators and the victims are black and the crimes are committed in predominately black neighborhoods.

Now before anyone accuses me of racism, let me explain why this preamble.

In both southeast Florida and west central Florida - which thankfully has fewer violent crimes - the cops are at a disadvantage.

Many of the people in the neighborhoods who know the perpetrators refuse to identify them, even when their own neighbors are the victims.

There are some in the community who call for everyone to stand up and help the local cops, but mostly the appeals fall of deaf ears.

The "Code of Silence." Never mind that at least some of the cops trying to solve a shooting are the same race as the perpetrators and the victims; but, a cop is a cop is a cop - he or she is "one of 'them'," no longer an accepted member of the community.

Meanwhile, the crimes continue and the citizens pay the price - in higher insurance costs, in less business from outside the community, in less services since people fear for their lives in the neighborhoods. And of course, in the body count - sometimes the body of a pre-schooler.

Now the much disparaged cops have lost incentive to help eliminate crime in the neighborhood.

* * * * * 

There is not much difference between the blacks' "Code of Silence" and the Muslims' "Code of Silence."

We are told, mostly by Muslims and bleeding heart liberals, that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding citizens who desire "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness." Just like most other Americans.

I have to wonder.

After 9-11 (2001), how did the Muslim world react?

Joyfully.

Were there criticisms of the Muslims who high jacked the four airplanes and slaughtered more than 3,000 men, women, and children?

I didn't hear any.

Where is the "9-11" mosque to be built?

Overlooking the memorial to the Trade Center victims.

Despite appeals by the victims' families and the general population, did the Muslims reconsider an offer to find a new location for the mosque? (An alternative site was offered.) Was there pressure from American Muslims to accept an alternate site?

The answer, in a word, is "No."

Where were the "peace-loving" Muslims who want to integrate into American society; why didn't they speak out and try and influence their co-religionists to reconsider.

Was there a rally in Muslim-dominated Detroit MI to denounce Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan after he murdered soldiers at Fort Hood?

If the Muslims in American want to be accepted, they MUST separate themselves from the alleged one percent of violent Muslims (see http://tinyurl.com/3zcuhbu); they must hit the bricks to denounce the violence committed by their fellows; they must loudly disassociate themselves from Islamist celebrations when a non-Muslim is killed by a Muslim, and they must loudly and visibly protest then Muslims call for the death of anyone who fails to show what Muslims deem proper respect for Mohammed - especially when Muslims depict others in a worse light.

* * * * * 

If blacks want police help in putting an end to - or at least reducing - the violence committed in their neighborhoods, they need to step up and help the cops. As long as they protect the criminals by their silence, they on the one hand encourage more violence and on the other discourage the police from acting in the community's best interest.

If Muslims in America want non-Muslims to accept and respect them, if they want non-Muslims to actually believe they are non-violent people who want to pursue liberty and justice for all, they need to loudly and visibly denounce the actions of Muslims such as those who carried out 9-11 and the Fort Hood attack, and the Muslims who celebrated the deaths of innocents.

There are blacks who are willing to work with the cops to clean up their neighborhoods.

There are Muslims who are appalled when a fellow Muslim murders someone or when fellow Muslims celebrate that murder.

These people need to step up and loudly condemn crime.

The blacks need to speak up and work with the cops.

The Muslims need to ostracize the promoters of hatred in their mosques, their madrasas, and on their street corners.

It may be unfortunate, but the truth is, perception is very important.

Both blacks in southeast and west central Florida and Muslims nationwide need to work on their image.

Spin, spin, spinWhat a Billion Muslims Really Think

 

A little professionally produced, 58 minute-plus video titled What a Billion Muslims Really Think tries to develop sympathy for the "non violent" Muslims of the world.

Financed by Arab organizations, and largely populated with Muslims or employees of Arab organizations, the film goes on, seemingly forever, about how a Gallup pollster group, headed by a Muslim woman, developed a questionnaire and gathered data from Muslims around the world.

According to the chief pollster, "only one percent of all Muslims in the world are violent" (see http://tinyurl.com/2djwkgv).

She might be right.

But the silence of the remaining 99 percent who accept their fellow Muslims atrocities suggests that this "silent majority" indeed agrees, or at least fails to disagree with any visibility, with the one percent.

Well into the film and all we learn is how the Gallup poll was developed.

The film was interrupted by a commercial - interesting since there was a long list of sponsorship credits at the beginning of the project - and never resumed where it left off; I never found out what 1 billion obviously silent Muslims really think.

One point the film made early on is that only about 15 percent of the Muslim world's population are Arabs. What was ignored is that even non-Arab Muslims, such as those in Indonesia, are practitioners of violence.

All Muslims bow to Mecca, one of two places holy to Mohammed, the other being not Jerusalem but Medina, also in Saudia.

If Muslims ARE "peace loving" folks with a different religion and customs, why don't they speak up?

OK, I understand that "speaking up" may be hazardous to a Muslim's life is a Muslim country - humm, that says something about Islam and thought control - but why don't "peace loving" Muslims speak up in countries where they have - and use - free speech, countries like the U.S., Britain, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc. In Denmark they called for the murder of someone whose lack of Muslim sensitivity offended them. No trial, just "catch and kill."

They rail against the governments in "free societies" and look to those free societies for support them when they try to over-throw one despotic government for another; ask yourself: Is Egypt any better off with the Moslem Brotherhood in control?

They - peace loving Muslims - seem to have a different mentality than Westerners, a mentality that is in conflict with the Western mentality. It may be suitable to Indo-China where Islam has made great inroads, but not in Europe or North America.

Jews from Arab states - Morocco, Libya, Tunis, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere - manage to integrate into European and North American society, where, for all their religious uniqueness, they manage to become loyal, law-abiding citizens of their host country.

Muslim Arabs from the same countries bring their supremacist, racist mentality and expect it to be accepted by people who have long challenged the theory of religious or racist supremacy, a philosophy that parallels the nazis' (with whom the Arab nations aligned themselves.

I know there are good Muslims, even Arab Muslims, but I have to wonder where they are.

Rather than make classy films about What a Billion Muslims Really Think, I would prefer to see Muslims, Arab and otherwise, hit the bricks demanding that the "violent one percent" be routed out and ostracized from civilized humanity.

Let us see the 99 percent of "peaceful" Muslims join their fellow citizens in condemning the likes of Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan who was praised by Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who quickly declared Hasan a hero, as "fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty."

To be fair, the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the shooting; Salman al-Ouda, a dissident Saudi cleric and former inspiration to Osama bin Laden, condemned the shooting saying the incident would have bad consequences; translation: it could lead to a backlash against the 99% of "peaceful" Muslims who, save for the politically correct Council on American-Islamic Relations one-liner, stayed hidden behind closed doors - in shame or celebration, only those Muslims know.

In the end, I don't care WHAT a Gallup poll allegedly reports; I have little faith in Gallup and similar polls, anyway - have you ever been queried by a Gallup pollster or anyone else other than, perhaps, outside a voting booth?

I want to see American Muslims taking to the street in support of America and its freedoms, freedoms one hopes they came to enjoy rather than (try to) destroy.

Time is running out for the Muslims in the west to prove that they are, indeed, 99 percent in favor of peaceful coexistence with western mentality and civility.

I have a hard time believing that one billion Muslims want to live in peace, want to coexist without destroying the people who welcomed them into their countries. The online movie failed to convince me.

Rabbi trumps the Torah ?

 

Sh'alah

If there is no mikveh available, may a woman immerse in a pool?

Chacham Ovadia Yosef rules that a rabbi may not allow people to commit a rabbinic prohibition even in such a case, where they will otherwise violate a Torah prohibition. Halacha does not become more flexible in response to the "intimidation" of those who are prepared to transgress Torah law if a rabbinic provision is not suspended. This principle is explicitly mentioned as well by R. Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in his work Iggerot Moshe (Yoreh Dei'a section, 52), where he writes that a rabbi may not allow a violation of halacha of any kind due to the threats of sinners that they will otherwise commit more grievous transgressions.

Chacham Ovadia added that issuing a ruling permitting the use of pools as a mikveh eliminates any incentive on the part of the community to construct a proper mikveh. For this reason, too, a rabbi must not issue such a ruling, and should rather insist that the community take it upon itself to construct a valid mikveh.

From the Daily Halacha by R. Eli J. Mansour

 

Caught between hammer and anvil

G-d's very first commandment to us is to "be fruitful and multiply." (בראשית א כ"ז). This even before He told us not to eat of the "tree of knowledge."

The absolute first commandment to ben adam - humankind.

We also are told that a woman who is "nidda" cannot be with her husband until she immerses herself in a "fountain or cistern" (Soncinco translation of Leviticus 11, V36.)

According to R. Mansour, "a mikveh must be constructed in such a way that rainwater falls directly into the mikveh. If the water is brought to the mikveh from somewhere else, either through human involvement or a piping system, it is invalid."

I have never seen a mikveh open to the heavens (except for a lake or ocean).

I HAVE seen a great many swimming pools open to the heavens.

But back to the original problem.

If a woman must visit a mikveh before she can visit her husband, she could never become pregnant, thereby cancelling out HaShem's first commandment to us, to "be fruitful and multiply."

I concur with Ovadia that allowing women to immerse in their own chlorinated pools probably would discourage them from pressing for a local mikveh.

But rather than a rabbi - or even many rabbis - having the chutzpah to cancel HaShem's first commandment to humankind, it seems to be a better approach would be to make a mikveh desirable - and affordable - place for a woman to visit.

There are, I'm told, some classy mikvot where the visitors are treated royally. There are, admittedly, many that are dark and encourage a quick in-and-out. And, more and more, there are some "in between" mikvot - clean with a courteous attendant who, when necessary, provides information in a tactful way to newcomers and to those long-away from the mitzvah.

At the same time, rabbis - and knowledgeable rabbis' wives - need to educate the ladies that the mikveh is not for "cleanliness," although it has that benefit.

Telling a "modern" woman that she must travel perhaps a very long distance to a dirty mikveh possibly in a "not nice" section of town won't convince many women to make the effort.

Telling them they cannot use their pool - do they immerse completely unclothed as required? - without offering something more attractive is a waste of rabbinical time for most women, at least in the U.S.

Telling them they cannot approach their husband until they visit the mikveh likewise will result in most women ignoring the rabbi.

Some time ago I learned that a rabbinical fiat that the people ignore is no longer law.

I know the rabbis disagree with that, even though it came from one of their own. One told me "we took the law" which, by extension, he meant, "and you - simple Jew - will do as we say." The absolute arrogance of the man.

R. Ovadia has a large following, as does R. Monsour, and R. Feinstein's reputation is acknowledged worldwide.

But this time . . .

The Iraqi may be right that a woman should prefer the mikveh to a backyard pool, but I think his approach is wrong and the rabbinical gall to overrule a Torah law must have HaShem shaking his head in bewilderment - "Why are they doing this to me after I told them not to go to the left or to the right?"

What am I missing?

 

As of 8:37 a.m. Eastern time Friday, May 20, 2011, the U.S. national debt was

$55,354,057,812,217

and each individual U.S. citizen - every man, woman, and child - owed

$177,767

By the time this is read, the debt will be substantially more.

You can watch it climb at http://www.usdebtclock.org/#.

At the same time the national debt - our indebtedness - is skyrocketing, the president (POTUS) is promising billions for potential - likely - enemies of the U.S. in hopes he can buy friends.

Mr. President: This has NEVER worked; not for Democrats and not for Republicans.

It certainly will not work dealing with Moslems who want to take over the world.

What MIGHT work is another Great White Fleet; the fleet that Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world proving his "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy worked. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet.)

For all that, where is Congress going to get the money so you can keep your rash promise?

While I support limited, emergency foreign aid - e.g., helping Haiti's poor recover from that country's several disasters - I fail to see any benefit of aid to Egypt (the U.S.' partner who was overthrown) or the so called PLO (whose former leader pocketed a large percentage of the loot); even Israel, a country that probably can stand on its own if it could be weaned from the U.S.' financial teat.

The U.S. is owned by others, primarily by China.

No longer are Americans an independent people nor is our country still ours.

We have been "sold out" by Washington - by both Democrats and Republicans - and you, Mr. President, are continuing the great - and stupid - tradition of selling our children's futures for your own glory - "Look how I helped <pick a country>." Never mind it was money generations to come must earn.

It might not be so bad were the promises not coming on the heels of an invasion of a country involved in a civil war, an invasion in which we had no right to participate. (Remember the Monroe Doctrine?)

And never mind that the rulers the rioters are overthrowing managed to keep the lid on internal strife - much like the Communists in the former Soviet Union.

And never mind that, if all the revolting countries follow in the path of Egypt and Gaza they will be dominated by terrorists determined to eliminate the Great Satan - the U.S. - and then all the infidels - until they run out of infidels then they'll start on each other.

Not only do your promises sell us and our children and their children into debtor's prison - for truly, owning debt we can never repay is a prison - you are selling us to a people who hate us, who WILL "bite the hand that feeds them."

Is there anyone in Congress with the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to prevent POTUS from giving away our future?

Bin Laden Dead?

 

I'm informed, via radio, tv, emails, newspapers, and people-in-passing, that Obama Bin Laden is dead; killed by Navy SEALs after a fire fight at his allegedly luxurious compound in Pakistan.

Funny enough, I suggested just such an attack in a March 27 entry at http://tinyurl.com/3oeatkd.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it.

I have a lack of confidence in governments - plural. Government people lie when it suits them.

I told one person I want to see Bin Laden's head - preferably separated from his body in true Islamic fashion; the person's reply: "Have you ever SEEN Bin Laden?" The point was well made. Just like Barak Obama's certificate of birth, the "evidence" of Bin Laden's death could be manufactured at Langley (CIA headquarters) or other, similar, facilities.

If Israel's Mosad claimed credit for killing Bin Laden, I still would have my doubts.

I'm glad that the Powers-That-Be FINALLY realized the only effective way to eliminate Bin Laden - and others like him - is to send in small units of personnel highly trained in the job to be accomplished.

The Bin Laden exercise - according to reports I've heard - was carried out by four helicopters carrying Navy SEAL teams. One of the aircraft apparently was shot down or otherwise failed to complete the mission; so far I have heard no reports of other SEAL causalities.

While eliminating Bin Laden provides a psychological boost to those people targeted by Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, and want-to-be's, I doubt it will have much impact on his loyalists.

First many won't believe he was killed. Short of photographic evidence of Bin Laden and his closest associates lying side-by-side waiting to be doused with gasoline prior to being incinerated (burned bodies miss out on the 70 virgins), I doubt any Moslem will concede his or her leader is no more.

* * *

Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip said "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood," he told the Reuters news agency.

This from a person whose primary goal in life if to shed Israeli blood - one child at a time.

* * *

According to one report I heard, the Navy deep-sixed (threw overboard) Bin Laden's body; that seems very "convenient."

More than not believing their figurehead is dead, I expect there will be a surge of attacks against targets everywhere, but especially in the U.S., to "avenge" his death or for starting rumors of his death.

Now that the SEALs have proven my point (see http://yohanon.blogspot.com/2011/03/promises-vs-political-foolishness.html) perhaps Washington will rethink its military excursion policy; rather than send in thousands of reservists - the equivalent of using an elephant gun to shot a gnat - send in highly trained, mission-specific teams to eliminate a threat's leadership.

In the case of Bin Laden, I think Al-Qaeda and its look-alikes will survive; he was in power and thumbing his nose at the world for too long; he had time to develop a following that will only grow more determined in his absence.

The U.S., in addition to "targeting" the terrorists' leadership, needs to treat captured enemy as spies - they don't wear a recognized uniform after all - and shoot them; they should NOT be considered military prisoners of war or civilian non-combatants. They do NOT deserve, not should they be granted, anything beyond basic human rights - that is, a efficient execution in accordance with Islamic law (i.e., beheading). And then incinerate the bodies.

Even if Osama bin Laden is dead, his fanaticism lives on. We - the non-Moslem world - must remain alert; the jihadist threat remains.

To become complacent now would not only be foolish, it would be fatal.

* * *

More about the Navy's SEALs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs

* * *

No camps for Jewish refugees

 

Israel's Moslem neighbors are unable to absorb the (initially) few thousand Moslems who either voluntarily left Israel in 1948, making way the "glorious Arab armies that would drive the Jews to the sea" or were chased out by Jews who, in many cases, correctly perceived them to be Fifth Columnists (enemies inside the borders).

It's interesting to note that many Moslems stayed in Israel, became Israeli citizens, and enjoy 99% of all the county's benefits.

Many of the Moslems who left Israel received compensation from Israel for their claims.

So why are they still in refugee camps in Gaza, in Lebanon, and elsewhere?

Because no one wants them.

To its credit, Jordan has absorbed a number of refugees sufficient that a few hold positions in the Jordanian government. (Perhaps the current king has forgotten about the Palestinian attempt on his father's life and Black September - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_(group).) Or, perhaps, the Jordanians realize that Jordan IS the Palestinian state.

Since they won't absorb the refugees, the Moslem states let their brothers-in-religion sit in the camps, blaming Israel for the refugees' woes. To be honest, these states DO allow residents of Occupied Israel (Gaza and the so called "West Bank") entry to work at low level pay. And, these imported workers know that they can be expelled at the whim of the leadership.

Compare this

to the plight of Jews forced out or "encouraged" to leave their homes and property in Arab lands.

Compensation? None.

Yet the so-called Palestinians want compensation from Israel.

Seems to me that the maybe a swap could be arranged: The Moslems in the camps could be resettled in the countries the Jews vacated. The Jewish Agency funded most of the travel for indigent Jews; surely the Arab League could foot the bill to move Moslems into new host countries.

Absorption costs? Israel and the Jewish Agency - at one time practically one and the same - paid, and continues to pay - costs to absorb new immigrants from "wherever." Let the Arab League pay the integration costs for the relocated Moslems.

At least they don't have to learn the (basic) language.

The "Jewish Virtual Library" has an interesting page titled "Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries" by Jacqueline Shields at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jewref.html. It includes a chart near the end of the file showing the declining number of Jews in Arab states over the years since 1948.

In 1948, there was an estimated 856,000 Jews in 10 Moslem countries; as of 2004, the number was a little more than 7,600.

The only two of 10 Moslem countries listed that has a population of more than 1000 Jews are Morocco with an estimated 5,500 and Tunisia with 1,500 (figures as of 2004). Interestingly, Morocco is considered a "vacation" spot by some Israelis who still have relatives in the country.

Why "Palestinians" are not wanted

With the unrest in the Arab League's world, the so-called Palestinians in their brothers' lands are being threatened with expulsion. According to a posting by Khaled Abu Toameh on the Hudson New York blog (http://www.hudson-ny.org/2007/palestinians-deported-from-syria, "Buthaina Shaaban, an advisor to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, surprised many reporters last week when she announced that Palestinian refugees living in her country took part in attacks on government installations in the cities of Deraa and Latakia."

According to Toameh, "Palestinians fear that the latest charges against them are aimed at paving the way for their deportation from Syria, the same way many Gulf countries expelled tens of thousands of Palestinian families after the liberation of Kuwait by US-led coalition forces in the early 1990s."

Many of the 700,000 so-called Palestinians thought to be in Syria are kept in refugee camps, although, the blog notes, the "Syrians are believed to be holding hundreds of Palestinians in various prisons."

An unnecessary flap

 

An article in the Dallas Morning News notes that the US Justice Department is filing suit for religious discrimination on behalf of a Moslem teacher.

The immediate reaction is, depending on your point of view, either distain or joy.

As I read the article, my response was: How stupid.

According to the article, a Moslem who is a math teacher in a public school system requested a 3-week unpaid leave-of-absence to travel to Mecca to make hajj, a once-in-a-lifetime requirement for all observant Muslims.

The article continued that "The district denied (the teacher's) request twice because it did not meet the requirements specified by the union contract."

The teacher complained to the EEOC; the EEOC declined to act on the complaint.

The teacher resigned.

Somewhere along the way the Justice Department involved itself and filed a civil rights suit on the teacher's behalf against the school district.

My wife is a school teacher. She recently took a six-week unpaid leave of absence from her job. The school actually saved some money since substitutes are paid less than full-time teachers.

Question: Why are the feds attacking the school district? The problem seems to lie with the union; remember: "requirements specified by the union contract."

I am assuming the hajj must be performed during a specific time frame, one that falls within the normal (American) school year, so the event could not be postponed until summer vacation.

On the other hand, the once-in-a-lifetime event can be performed during any year, so the teacher might have (a) taken a year-long leave-of-absence or (b) deferred the trip until after retirement. I can fully understand not wanting to defer a trip since no one knows how long they will live, and I can sympathize not wanting to take a year-long sabbatical since the job may not be there on the teacher's return. (How long had the teacher been in the system; what was the teacher's record; what are the union rules, and more all play into the de4cision.)

The teacher elected to resign rather than forego the trip. Just as an observant Jew would resign if an employer insisted the Jew work on Yom Kippor. There are other employers and other school districts . . . both public and private.

There is no reason for the feds to get involved in this, certainly not against the school district that abided by a union contract. This is not a matter of "religious discrimination" as much as union short-sightedness or an unwillingness on both the district and the union to be flexible.

If the teacher was a good teacher, it is unfortunate the teacher resigned.

But to make a federal case of this seems a waste of taxpayer dollars while opening a huge Pandora's box.

Two faces of Islam

 

While Israel firefighters receive help from "Palestinian" Authority firefighters - as it did from numerous nations including some (Turkey and Greece) that normally avoid each other, other "Palestinians" continue to shell Israeli settlements from Aza (Gaza).

From the Jerusalem Post headlined 'We're being shelled from Gaza on a daily basis' (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=198573): Southern regional councils situated near the border with the Gaza Strip released a joint statement on Wednesday following yet more mortar and rocket attacks on the area from Gaza.

This prompted after a home in a kibbutz located in the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council was damaged by a Palestinian mortar shell fired from Gaza on Wednesday.

The same newspaper reported (http://tinyurl.com/26eg2u5) on some Israel-related WikiLeaks that showed leaders of Saudia and some Gulf states privately told the US that they feared Iran and wanted the US to do something about it. Publically, the same Moslem leaders told their people via censored media that the problem was because Israel existed. American "thought leaders" were quick to jump on the Moslem "blame everything on Israel" bandwagon.

Israel's government hardly is perfect, but at least - for better or for worse - what it generally says privately it also says publically.

Peace - generations away

 

The US War for Southern Independence, a/k/a War of Northern Aggression or Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865.

Following the war, the prevailing US government tightly controlled governments of the rebellious states for another 12 years, to 1877.

I've lived in a neutral, "bipolar" state (Indiana) that sent troops to both Federal and Confederate armies and allowed both to ride the state's railroad as long as they could buy a ticket and kept the peace.

I've lived in the south - Alabama, Florida, and Texas.

And I've lived in the Intermountain West.

Believe me when I relate that there are some folks in the "real" south - rural Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, the Carolinas and Texas, and maybe a few in Kentucky and Tennessee, who firmly believe Damn Yankee is one word - damnyankee.

These are not necessarily Ku Kluxers and they are not necessarily racist, although probably many are the latter. Mostly they ae "states' righters," people who believe the less Federal interference in state-level issues the better.

The only time these folks gave rest to their ill-will toward the Federal powers was when the nation went to war - World Wars 1 and 2, Korea, Vietnam.

Only now, more than a century and a half after the end of hostilities and 133 years after the so-called reconstruction period ended are the hand-me-down hatreds of a defeated people beginning to be forgotten, let go.

A neighbor of mine who had been in World War 2 in the Pacific refused to buy a Japanese car for most of his adult life. I felt the same way about "Made in Germany" - regardless of the politically correct reparations paid to the few surviving Jews and others deemed unfit to live by the nazis. My neighbor and I both came to realize that the way cars are built today, parts come from all parts of the world, including Germany and Japan. As it happens, I drive a Korean made-from-Japanese-specifications car "assembled" in the U.S.

The point of all the above is to warn people not to expect "instant peace" no matter what transpires between Israel and the Moslem power-du-jour in Occupied Israel.

I am amazed, and grateful, that a relative peace exists on Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan; I consider Egypt's Muhammad Anwar El Sadat, whose plane I watched from my Holon balcony as it headed to Lod, a true hero. Jordan's King Hussein bin Talal was brave, but only followed Sadat's lead.

But even with the peace, there still is a great deal of mistrust. I hear - less and less in Israel - that "you don't trust an Arab even when he's in the ground." This from people who were born in Arab states, people who "know" the Arab/Moslem mentality.

However, when you see photos such as this one, where the slaughter of innocents is indoctrinated into very small children; where martyrdom is glorified before kindergarten boys and girls, you must realize that until this generation - the children of today - dies and the indoctrination stops, suicide murders, rocket attacks, and other outrages on Israeli citizens - Jews and non- Jews - will continue.

No "magic words" from world leaders will change the mindset of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quida, and the hundred other Islamic terror organizations that threaten both Israel and the rest of the world as well.

The politicians might shake hands and win "Peace" prizes that, based on recent past recipients have no real value, but the people, the children, will continue to learn not war but murder. It is not war to load a donkey with explosives and walk it into a crowd to blow up the animal and the people around it. It is not war to strap explosives on children and pregnant women and send them to blow themselves up "for Allah."

There are, of course, two sides to every coin. The people of Gaza will not welcome intercourse with Israelis with open arms, remembering not that they were used as shields by their brothers but that the Israelis had the gall, the chutzpah, to defend themselves by returning fire.

The Arabs in Occupied Israel also won't be happy with Israelis who built a fence that inconveniences them just because terrorists came into Israel from their territory.

The Lebanese will long remember Israel's incursion while forgetting why.

Eventually, most of the hatred will go away, but Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, are doing everything they can to assure it will linger long into the future.

I would like to think my grand-daughter will live in peace in Israel and that she can travel freely as her neighbors from the Arab states. I know it won't happen in my lifetime, but God willing, perhaps in hers.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Thoughts on "The Mosque at Ground Zero"

 

The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of assembly.

The U.S. constitution guarantee freedom of speech.

The U.S. constitution DOES NOT guarantee freedom to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

The U.S. constitution DOES NOT guarantee freedom to establish a facility - religion-related or otherwise - in any location deemed desirable by the organization that wants to build.

The U.S. constitution DOES NOT totally eliminate "state's rights" and local authority.

Injecting the White House into this discussion is improper; it is a matter for the City of New York, not the State of New York, and certainly not the Federal government. POTUS is a resident of Chicago IL and a temporary resident of Washington D.C.; he is NOT a resident of New York City or even New York State.

There are more than 100 mosques in greater New York City. Obviously no one is restricting the right of Muslims to practice their religion. In the Constitution's's terms, the right to worship is not abridged even if the mosque disallowed at Ground Zero.

The right of freedom of assembly has long been restricted by the general good of the community. That's why there are zoning laws.

So much for "rights."

There is, as can be discerned by anyone who reads or listens to media, a broad base of people who are very much "anti-mosque-at-ground-zero." Although we generally are what the Moslems claim to be, peaceful, putting a mosque at this site will incite people to put aside their feelings of "live and let live." In other words, the Moslems are shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.

What I fail to understand is why Islamists want to seemingly thumb their noses at America? It was Islamists - Moslems - who murdered thousands of people working or visiting the New York City landmark Twin Towers.

It was Islamists - Moslems - who murdered more people at the Pentagon in Virginia.

It was Islamists - Moslems - who tried, unsuccessfully, to highjack a fourth plane to crash it into the White House. The passengers fought back until they, too, were murdered.

If the Islamists - Moslems - have ANY sense of public relations they MUST know that putting up any type Islamist structure will be considered an insult to America.

The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from the Islamist - Moslem - determination to put a mosque/community center in close proximity to Ground Zero is to show absolute distain for America and its citizens.

Putting the mosque where the Islamists - Moslems - propose is akin to flying a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor or a nazi flag over a German embassy in Israel.

COMMENTS must be directed to the blogger's email.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com