From the “Gotta Love It” file. Extremists behind anti-war protest driven off the streets by moderate Muslims


Muslim extremists behind a protest against soldiers on a homecoming parade have been driven off the streets today by members of their own community.

Fights broke out and traffic ground to a halt when moderate Muslims confronted a group of about 12 men who regularly preach from a stall in Bury Park – the heart of Luton’s Muslim community.

After Friday prayers, more than 200 members of local mosques turned on the group who sparked outrage in March when they disrupted a parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment through the town centre.

They ( the extremists:HH)shouted ‘baby killers’ and ‘butchers of Basra’ at the returning soldiers as well as brandishing placards against the Iraq war.

But today the extremists were surrounded by a crowd as they began to set up their stall, shouting ‘We don’t want you here’ and ‘move on, move on’.

Angry words were exchanged and scuffles broke out between members of both groups, with the extremists shouting ‘Shame on you’ and ‘Get back to your synagogue’.

Farasat Latif, of the Islamic Centre in Luton, which was firebombed after the protest against the soldiers, said moderate members of his community took action because police had failed to move the group on.

He said the extremists, who follow the militant group led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammed, had fuelled feelings against the Muslim community which led to a march last Sunday in Luton which was disrupted by white, right-wing extremists.
Mr Latif said: ‘We have been fighting these Muslim extremists for you. They represent nobody but themselves.

‘The community decided to move them on because the police won’t. We have asked them, but they did nothing.‘I don’t know if they will be back. We have been the victims twice over – from the stupidity of Muslim extremists who metaphorically pour petrol and fan the flames of the right wing extremists.
‘This was a peaceful demonstration and we hope they get the message that the law-abiding community is sick and tired of them.’

Mansfield Flag Controversy Draws Worldwide Outrage

Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?

For one Arlington woman, the answer was “no” after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.

Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.

When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. “I was just totally speechless. I was like, ‘You’re kidding me,'” McLucas said.

McLucas’ husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.

Stifling a cry, McLucas said, “I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing.”

McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said that supervisor took down the flag herself.

“The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor,” McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher-ups had told her some patients’ families and visitors had also complained.

“I was told it wouldn’t matter if it was only one person,” she said. “It would have to come down.”

McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.

“I find it very frightening because if I can’t display my flag,” McLucas asked, “whatother freedoms will I lose before all is said and done?”

Kindred Healthcare’s corporate headquarters are located in Kentucky. We called them for comment when we were first working on this story Tuesday, but they did not return our calls.

Wednesday morning, however, our story received nationwide attention. We have received hundreds of emails and comments from people who had something to say about it.

Among the supporters was a combat medic in Iraq: Debbie McLucas’ daughter, Lillian McLucas Dressig. “My mom is a true hero in my book,” she said.

It was midnight in Iraq when she spoke to CBS 11. Talking about the stand her mother took which could have cost her job, Lillian said, “If it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. And, I think we need more people to stand up for what’s right in America.”

Several dozen people protested outside the Mansfield hospital Wednesday. And a receptionist at Kindred’s headquarters told us they received many phone calls.

Then, late Wednesday morning, Kindred posted on its website a statement about the incident. It reads, in part: “The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up.”

We talked to McLucas Wednesday afternoon. She says the hospital’s local CEO called and apologized. And McLucas says the woman did tell her she could put the flag back up, which she has done.

But she says when she was first told the flag had to go, nobody mentioned anything about its size being the root of the problem.

“At no point was I afforded the opportunity — [no one said,] ‘Hey Deb, could you get a one and a half by three and a half and hang it instead of hanging this three by five?'” McLucas said.

Even so, McLucas says she’s happy people have spoken out about the issue. “It’s just restored my faith in the American people,” she said.

Big Game Hunters Guide to Conservatives and Liberals.

When venturing out into the hostile wilderness of politics seeking a prize for your mantle it is good to know as much as possible about your game.

Conservatives are elusive game. The problem is that they come in three different types. Quite distinct and with different values as trophies.

The first type of conservative to be found on the veldts of D.C. is known as the Business Conservative. The only thing conservative about this creature is it’s suit and home life. Essentially these beasts are of the jackal family existing only to prey on the weak and the old. Much of government regulation is made to deal with the rampages of these beasts. They are hard to winnow out though from other stripes of Conservative as they take on protective coloring to hide their bloodthirsty tendencies. The most notable of this degenerate breed is known as Bernie Madoff.

The Business Conservative is a dragline to progress wherever he or she, is found. On the other hand the very excesses of this breed of scavengers has provoked many laws dealing with things as diverse as child labor and general workplace safety.

Another breed of Conservative is known as the Jesus Freak. This one is also hard to identify with certainty as the B.C. most often disguises himself as one. A number of True Conservatives also can be mistaken for this breed at first glance but will show its true colors with study.

The true Jesus Freak is essentially a theocracy believing heretic of the Christian religion. Their supposed savior and teacher Jesus taught in unequivocal terms several lessons that these critters chose to ignore while striving to create a heretical government in His very name.

The first of these lessons is that prayer in public, especially for a SOCIAL purpose is anathema. The only true prayer to God according to their prophet is in private and just between the Christian and God. He goes on to disapprove the person who prays in order to be SEEN to pray, for social status . Yet we find that “pious” public prayer by individuals and groups is the hallmark of the J.F.!

The Teacher the J.F’s claim also taught that his followers were not supposed to seek a civil government based on His teachings. They were to hold their relationship with God in their hearts, not base the machinery of government on it. This too the J.F. ignores blithely. Many believe the J.F.s to be degenerate Christians while others feel they are more like the B.C.s, a wholly alien breed hiding amongst the real Christians.

The last main species of Conservative is what we choose to all the True Conservative. This is a self reliant individual who has no more desire to interfere with others private affairs than they desire others to interfere in their own. The often are Christian or Jewish but need not be religious at all to follow their herd. In fact they do not tend to homogenous herds but are salted amongst the other breeds of Conservative and even in non-Conservative herding grounds. They tend to be generous but slow to true friendship. Once made however this connection will bear great strain. The True Conservative can be your best friend in times of trouble and won’t trouble you in good times.

The T.C. is a hardy breed that will often be found on the frontiers of society hewing a new path of their own in the wilderness unlike the other two who tend to huddle and herd in “safe” zones that do not challenge their assumptions.

Interestingly this huddling tendency is shared by some of the Liberal breeds as well.
The Liberal herds are much more amorphous compared to the Conservatives. They exist as more of a spectrum than a set of sub breeds. At the far right of this spectrum the Liberal blends imperceptibly into the Moderates and causes few problems. Indeed the Middle Left part of the Liberal herd has been responsible for most of the social “progress” the whole Human race has made.

From the middle of the Liberal herd to the very Left fringes however an strange disorder overtakes the herd. A disorder that is ultimately not usually fatal but always debilitating to not only the Liberal breeds but any others living in close proximity.

This disorder shows itself as a form of self hatred directed at the entire herd in reverse proportion to the herd’s own progress with the disorder. The most infected parts are not attacked at all while non-infected Liberals can be viciously mauled even worse than would a non-Liberal who wandered into their grounds.

The mindset of the Leftmost Liberals is a hard thing for an outsider to distinguish from a J.F.. Both breeds have an overwhelming desire to take their fantasies and impose them as law on all other breeds in the land and will mutilate and maul any who disagree with their “Truth” while claiming the highest moral ground. Both the L.L. and the J.F. seek a totalitarian, essentially fascist society that conforms to their ideal of a “Proper society”. Woe betide any who stand in the way of these subherds when they are on the move.

Please take note that this article only refers to the American breeds. Elsewhere the main breeds also exist but the J.F. can take a number of different forms based on different religions, some of which make the most vicious North American J.F. look like a tame kitten.

Please remember that the T.C. is currently on the endangered list and protected. Also, the law allows you to tag, photograph and release but culling the herds is something we must leave to natural processes.

Church of Scientology goes on trial in France after members are accused of organised fraud

The Church of Scientology in France went on trial today on charges of organised fraud.
Registered as a religion in the United States, …Scientology enjoys no such legal protection in France and has faced repeated accusations of being a money-making cult.
The group’s Paris headquarters and bookshop are defendants in the case. If found guilty, they could be fined €5million and ordered to halt their activities in France.
Accused: The group’s Paris headquarters and bookshop are defendants in the case and could be fined €5million if they are found guilty of charges of organised fraud

Seven leading French Scientology members are also in the dock. Some are charged with illegally practising as pharmacists and face up to 10 years in prison and hefty fines.
The case centres on a complaint made in 1998 by a woman who said she was enrolled into Scientology after members approached her in the street and persuaded her to do a personality test.
In the following months, she paid more than €21,000 for books, ‘purification packs’ of vitamins, sauna sessions and an ‘e-meter’ to measure her spiritual progress, she said.

Other complaints then surfaced. The five original plaintiffs – three of whom withdrew after reaching a financial settlement with the Church of Scientology – said they spent up to hundreds of thousands of euros on similar tests and ‘cures’.

They told investigators that Scientology members harassed them with phone calls and nightly visits to cajole them into paying their bills or taking out bank loans.

The plaintiffs were described as ‘vulnerable’ by psychological experts in the case.
Scientology, founded in 1954 by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, describes the ‘e-meter’ as a religious artefact that helps the user and supervisor locate spiritual distress.

Investigators have described the machine as useless and said vitamin cures handed out by Church members were medication that should not have been freely sold.
Judge Jean-Christophe Hullin ruled last year that the offices and members, including the group’s 60-year-old French head, Alain Rosenberg, should be tried. The public prosecutor had recommended the case be shelved.

In a trial that has revived a debate about religious freedom in secular France, the defence is expected to argue the court should not intervene in religious affairs.
Scientology has faced numerous setbacks in France, with members convicted of fraud in Lyon in 1997 and Marseille in 1999. In 2002, a court fined it for violating privacy laws and said it could be dissolved if involved in similar cases.
The headquarters and bookshop account for most of the group’s activities in France and a guilty verdict would in practice mean its dissolution, although it is unclear whether it could still open other branches in the future.

Read it all

N.Korea explodes ‘Hiroshima’ bomb – 20 times more powerful than its last nuke

North Korea was condemned as a ‘danger to the world’ yesterday after it exploded a nuclear warhead the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
Gordon Brown and Barack Obama led global criticism of the underground blast, which was ten to 20 times more powerful than the Communist state’s first nuclear test in 2006.
Diplomats believe the explosion, which prompted an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, was a calculated attempt by Pyongyang to destabilise the region and shore up its hardline regime.
But the isolated nation appeared to have overreached itself when even China and Russia joined in with the criticism.
Mr Brown swiftly denounced the move as ‘erroneous, misguided and a danger to the world’. The Prime Minister said: ‘This act will undermine prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula and will do nothing for North Korea’s security.
‘The international community will treat North Korea as a partner if it behaves responsibly. If it does not then it can expect only renewed isolation.’
Mr Obama said the nuclear test constituted an act of ‘blatant defiance’ of the UN Security Council, a violation of international law.
The U.S. President added: ‘North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile programme, constitute a threat to international peace and security.’
In a White House address the President pledged to work with allies around the world to ‘stand up to’ North Korea. Tensions had already been running high over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.
It was censured by the UN last month for launching a rocket – widely seen as a test for a missile that could carry a nuclear warhead – in breach of a missile test ban.
North Korea claimed it had launched a satellite into space, but the object actually flew over Japan before breaking up into the Pacific. It retaliated to the criticism by expelling UN nuclear inspectors.
Yesterday’s explosion in the country’s north was first detected by seismologists, who said it was a ten to 20 kiloton device that triggered earth tremors measuring 5.3 on the Richter scale that measures the size of earthquakes.

Emergency sirens sounded in the Chinese border city of Yanji, 130 miles from the test site, where residents felt the ground tremble.
The state- controlled Korean Central News Agency confirmed that the regime had ‘successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defence’.
South Koreans reacted to the terrifying news by staging angry street protests against their Stalinist northern neighbour.
Enlarge North Korea carried out the nuclear test at a site six miles underground and 40 miles north-west of Kimchaek in the north-east of the country
Western intelligence analysts and diplomats believe the explosion was designed to attract the attention of the Obama administration.
But it is more likely to lead to further isolation, by halting a recent thawing of relations with the West.

The U.S. had taken North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism after Pyongyang allowed some inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: ‘The test is a provocation that will prevent others from dealing with North Korea as a responsible partner.’

At an anti-North Korean rally, protesters in Seoul, South Korea, burn a mock North Korea nuclear missile and portraits of the country’s leader Kim Jong Il
Foreign Office and U.S. State Department experts believe that the blast is evidence that the hardline military in North Korea is asserting itself as the health of dictator Kim Jong-Il declines.
While the leadership is hard to penetrate and its motives are difficult to read, it is thought that Army chiefs want to reassert their influence before a successor is chosen to Kim, whose position has been on under question since he suffered a stroke last year.
Others think nuclear brinkmanship is a way for Kim to reassert his iron grip on power to ensure that one of his sons is well placed to succeed him.

The Taepoding-1, North Korea’s first generation of long-range ballistic missile. An updated version was fired over Japan two months ago that was capable of striking the U.S., while Pyongyang claimed to have fired a short-range missile

China, the hermit state’s regional benefactor, said it was resolutely opposed to the test, but it was thought to remain opposed to punitive sanctions.
Its foreign ministry said: ‘The Chinese side vehemently demands North Korea abides by its denuclearisation promises, stop any actions which may worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks process.
‘The Chinese government calls on all sides to calmly and appropriately deal with the situation.’

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday rejected a Western deal for Tehran to freeze its nuclear programme in return for no further sanctions. He ruled out talks on the issue, in a blow to Mr Obama’s attempts to engage with Iran diplomatically.

Nazism was a leftist ideology

by Henrik Ræder Clausen

With some annoyance, I recently noticed my local newspaper, Aarhus Stiftstidende, full of articles about Nazism, an ideology I thought we had seen the last of on the 5th of May 1945, when Denmark was liberated after 5 years of German occupation. But it seems we’re not that lucky.

A Nazi group exists in Denmark again, and leftwing extremists like Antifa contribute by putting up swastikas in the streets of Aarhus. While the craft was nicely done, it was swastikas nonetheless, a symbol I do not want in my city under any circumstances.

Then, there seems to be some confusion as to where Nazism belongs in the political spectrum. That is understandable, for probably no political group in Denmark (save the youth branch of Venstre, who recently held a meeting with them) would tolerate their company.

For this reason, it’s important to make clear that Nazism (the full name of the political party was “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, which translates to “National Socialist German Workers Party”), also according to their own understanding, is an extreme leftist ideology. They consider themselves to belong to the tradition of the Jacobins in France, and taking into account the Reign of Terror instigated by them, this is not an unreasonable characterization.
– – – – – – – – –
If one looks at the Nazi political program, and it’s implementation during the 1930’s (before the war), it was distinctly leftist, and radically so. Quoting Bruce Walker in American Thinker:

Vera Micheles Dean in her 1939 book, Europe in Retreat, written before the Second World War began, said that the Nazis had introduced into Germany a form of graduated Bolshevism, focusing first upon Jewish bankers, industrialists and businessmen, but then upon other businesses, noting that the Nazi goal, from which it had not deviated, was to establish an egalitarian society in which everyone is equal and subordinate to the state.

The main Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, made it clear from the outset that nothing was more despicable to the Nazis than the Bourgeoisie, the Capitalists and Christianity. Any confusion to the contrary may be due to the fact that the German Conservatives, in a vain attempt to ‘influence’ Hitler, decided to eventually work with him once he rose to power. This granted him the legitimacy he so desperately wanted, the power he needed to fulfill his plans, while the utterly frustrated Germans lived to see him wreck total havoc in Germany and Europe at large.

For obvious propagandistic reasons, Stalin and his allies fiercely insisted on using the ‘right-wing’ label on the Nazis. It would certainly not look good to expose the fact that Communism of the Soviet Union seen from an economic point of view (anti-Semitism is a different matter), was merely a more radical variant of the system implemented by Nazi Germany.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, an exhibition in Moscow compared Hitler and Stalin to great effect demonstrated just how similar Communism and Nazism are in their totalitarian insanity. Many an old Russian, who through decades persistently had admired Stalin, left the exhibition in tears, after it had become clear just how similar Communism was to the Nazism it had defeated.

As for Nazism as such, it is a confused and foolish ideology that doesn’t deserve life on earth. It is better to discuss issues of actual relevance.

Setting the Pres. straight on Israel

Eli E. Hertz Myths and Facts

Mr. President,
Before putting together the final touches on your anticipated ‘Peace Speech’ expected to be delivered in Egypt on June 4, 2009, I request of you a moment or two, to read what your fellow legislators had to say in the year 1922. The issue at the time was in respect to the recreation of the Jewish National Home – in the area designated for them by the “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

Mr. President, political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate]. Reducing any land already granted to the Jewish people under international law, is an injustice and a grievous handicap to the well being of the Jewish State.

Sincerely,
Eli E. Hertz
eli@mythsandfacts.org

—————-

The United States Congressional Record
1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
National Home for
THE JEWISH PEOPLE JUNE 30, 1922
HOUSE RESOLUTION 360 – UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED

“Palestine of today, the land we now know as Palestine, was peopled by the Jews from the dawn of history until the Roman era. It is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. They were driven from it by force by the relentless Roman military machine and for centuries prevented from returning. At different periods various alien people succeeded them but the Jewish race had left an indelible impress upon the land.

Today it is a Jewish country. Every name, every landmark, every monument and every trace of whatever civilization remaining there is still Jewish. And it has ever since remained a hope, a longing, as expressed in their prayers for these nearly 2,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Palestine as their national home. No other people has ever shown an aptitude or indicated a genuine desire to make it their homeland. The land has been ruled by foreigners. Only since the beginning of the modern Zionist effort may it be said that a creative, cultural, and economic force has entered Palestine. The Jewish Nation was forced from its natural home. It did not go because it wanted to.

A perusal of Jewish history, a reading of Josephus, will convince the most skeptical that the grandest fight that was ever put up against an enemy was put up by the Jew. He never thought of leaving Palestine. But he was driven out. But did he, when driven out, give up his hope of getting back? Jewish history and Jewish literature give the answer to the question. The Jew even has a fast day devoted to the day of destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Never throughout history did they give up hope of returning there. I am told that 90 per cent of the Jews today are praying for the return of the Jewish people to its own home. The best minds among them believe in the necessity of reestablishing their Jewish land. To my mind there is something prophetic in the fact that during the ages no other nation has taken over Palestine and held it in the sense of a homeland; and there is something providential in the fact that for 1,800 years it has remained in desolation as if waiting for the return of the people.”

Congressman Frank Appleby N.J.

Obama’s ”Solutions” Will Endanger Israel

All Julie Pateet and other political "anthropologists" love terrorists israel 67 73 48 borderSay No To A Palestinian State

Daniel Doron, 05.16.09, 03:00 PM EDT

Irving Kristol said that whomever the Gods want to teach humility they first tempt to resolve the Middle East conflict.

Solving this conflict has been so difficult because it has always been misconstrued. As a result of confusion about the conflict’s nature, the solutions that were nevertheless tried, such as the Oslo agreement establishing the Palestinian Authority, or Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, resulted in costly failures. The suffering of Israelis and Palestinian Arabs increased.

The most common approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, held by the well-connected Peace Now camp, holds that the conflict is about nationhood and territory. It blames Israel for the conflict, claiming Israel’s reluctance to fully withdraw its settlements from the West Bank (it did from Gaza) denies the Palestinian Arabs a contiguous territory and enough living space to assert their sovereignty.

This must be why the Obama administration seems to believe that pressuring Israel to immediately accept a Palestinian Arab state and to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries will bring about peace. Obama seems determined to take serious risks to pursue what he believes is a strategic imperative and a moral duty. Indeed, the two-state solution seems like the decent and rational solution to the conflict. But there are many serious doubts about its feasibility.

Advocates of the two-state solution consider themselves political realists. But they always stress the historical and judicial justification for establishing a Palestinian state. They see it as not only politically necessary but an absolute moral imperative, doing justice to a dispossessed people.

But should not the establishment of such a state–which the Europeans so strongly promote–adhere to the European Union’s 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, which states, “Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”?

Clearly a Palestinian Authority state will not even remotely meet such criteria. What moral justification is there, then, for forcing a vulnerable Israel, threatened by an irredentist Palestinian state, to help establish it when a powerful European Union refuses to take much smaller risks in the case of Turkey?

While Israel has impeded the evolution of Palestinian Arab society toward statehood, it is not the major culprit. Until Oslo, relatively free economic interaction between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs resulted in spectacular economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza. This created an informal peace process that greatly improved Arab life and promoted a Palestinian civil society committed to peace.

But external economic setbacks compounded by increasing Israeli bureaucratic oppression reversed this prosperity. Increasing Arab frustration finally exploded in 1987 in a popular uprising that led to the 1993 Oslo accords. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist organization, was invited to set up a Palestinian Authority as a preparation for an independent Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel.

But Arafat’s Authority was not interested in living in peace with Israel; it wanted to destroy it. Arafat gladly sacrificed Palestinian welfare, even lives, for this purpose. Ruining the Arab economy and using a totalitarian propaganda campaign to blame Israel for Palestinian misery, Arafat exploited Arab anger to escalate the conflict.

He succeeded because the conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is only superficially about nationhood and territory. Since the 1948 partition of Palestine, British Mandate Arabs had several opportunities to create an independent state. Jordan and Egypt ruled the area until 1967; recently, they could have done so after Oslo, after the Gaza withdrawal. But they did not, because they were intent on first destroying Israel.

As long as this is so, granting the Palestinian Arabs a state will not result in peace, but in continued war.

As for the historic and legal claims for a Palestinian Arab state, the argument that the Arabs seek the restoration of “stolen Palestinian lands” is sheer fabrication. The area of the former British mandate of Palestine (which included Jordan) was for centuries under the Ottomans an empty, deserted land.

Private rights never amounted to more than 4% of the land; 96% remains to this day mostly arid and government-owned. Palestine, as Mark Twain found it in 1860, was an empty “prince of desolation.” There was not even a Palestinian people–the few inhabitants considered themselves Syrian.

Palestine became a “promised land” again only after Jewish pioneers, in the second half of the nineteenth century, miraculously revived it, making it the most developed land in the region. It was then also that, as a result of their clash with Zionism, the Arabs started identifying themselves as Palestinians. So much for their “stolen” rights.

The claim that “illegal settlements” are an obstacle to peace is absurd too. Jewish settlements occupy less than 4% of the West Bank territory, mostly constructed on deserted government land. The reason the Arabs want them removed (but not Arab settlements in Israel) is that their radical leadership cannot tolerate any Jews living among them. All Arab lands were ethnically cleansed after 1948, forcing more than 1 million Jews to flee countries in which they had lived long before the Muslim occupation.

The Arabs’ struggle to retrieve “stolen Palestinian lands” is really an attempt to get rid of all Jews in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority maps of Palestine never mark an area as the state of Israel, and their leaders refuse to recognize the Jewish right for a national state.

International law too does not support Arab claims to a state in former Palestine. The last international adjudication of the rights to this territory took place in the post-World War I peace conference in San Remo, Italy. The victors generously granted the vast former Ottoman territories to newly formed Arab states (like Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq). Less than 1% of these vast territories were to be given in trust to the British to establish “a Jewish national home.”

The League of Nations decided that the Jews had a stronger legal claim to Palestine, their historic and national homeland. The Arabs, represented by Emir Faisal, agreed. They were happy to receive huge areas of land for such a small price. Fiasal welcomed the Jews back to their homeland. Only later British colonial machinations incited the Arabs to renege on this fantastic (for them) deal.

The conflict persists because the Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, cannot forget their 1948 defeat by the Jews. It is a blot on their honor that only the destruction of Israel can wipe out.

But the greatest difficulty in the immediate establishment of a Palestinian Arab state is the unlikelihood that it can be established and maintained right now. It is not by accident that the Arabs missed several opportunities to establish such a state.

The creation of yet another dysfunctional Palestinian Arab state will not only mortally threaten Israel, its irredentist nature will inflame the region. As importantly, it will continue making the personal and communal life of Palestinian Arabs unbearable. Remember what happened in Gaza after Israel vacated it: the wanton destruction of the hot houses Israel left behind to enable the Gazans to make a better living from agriculture; the rule of oppression and mayhem Hamas has instituted in Gaza; the continued impoverishment and immiseration of their hapless citizens. Is this the kind of government America wants extended to the West Bank?

But this will inevitably happen as a result of the premature formation of a Palestinian state. Within a very short time, it will disintegrate and be taken over by the extremist Hamas movement.

As in Gaza, a Hamas West Bank government, an Iranian proxy, will quickly launch missile attacks against Israel. From the West Bank, however, the missiles will not hit a sparsely inhabited Negev but the densely populated heartland of Israel, the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area. They will hit Israel’s only links to the world, Ben Gurion International Airport and the ports of Haifa and Ashdod.

Eventually Israel will be forced to go to war and re-occupy the West Bank. Such a campaign, as the recent Israeli Gaza operation demonstrated, will involve bloody fighting in densely populated areas, many casualties and great destruction. It won’t spare the civilian population. … This is surely not what the “realists” want, but can they honestly dismiss the probability that this may happen?

Chances that advocates of a Palestinian state will be convinced by such arguments are small. It is hard to dispel faith with facts. President Obama and his advisers seem convinced that they will succeed where others failed.

Israel may have to accede to Obama’s demands. But since there are great risks involved in the two-state solution, it would be fair for Obama to assure Israel that the U.S. will protect it from its serious consequences, should they unexpectedly materialize, as they have in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Daniel Doron is president of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progess.

READ IT ALL!!!

Fascism One, Freedom Zero in Northern Cal

Imagine it’s 1940, and picture Adolf Hitler speaking at a US university, receiving a polite reception, while Winston Churchill is barred from speaking because his safety cannot be guaranteed.

It’s unthinkable, yet the very same pro-fascist dynamic is a reality in 21st Century America.

Protestors at Berkeley, the campus once synonymous with the term “free speech,” forced the cancellation of Netanyahu’s speech there, as well as two subsequent speeches, in November 2000. The Jewish Bulletin of Northern California reported:

Hundreds of protesters shouting “Support the Palestinians, choose a side” and “No free speech for war criminals” blocked the gate leading to the Berkeley Community Theatre Tuesday evening, forcing the cancellation of a scheduled speech by former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Waving banners reading “Zionism=Nazism” and “End U.S. aid to Israel,” the crowd was estimated at more than 500 by the Berkeley Police Department and at 200 to 250 by observers…

The vitriol that greeted Netanyahu at Berkeley only worsened in the ensuing years. Anneli Rufus of the East Bay Express recalled that in 2001:

“…Students for Justice in Palestine had become large enough to stage a high-profile sit-in at UC’s Wheeler Hall. The group had demanded that the regents divest from companies with significant holdings in Israel. When the regents failed to respond, dozens of group members chained shut nine of the building’s twelve doors. They formed human chains to block two of the remaining doors and ushered students out of the building through the last door. Professor Gordon, who had an important class scheduled that day in Wheeler, burst through the chain of students only to be showered with spit and hit by a student…”

Later that year, 23-year-old Aaron Schwartz was walking toward the Hillel building as part of an obviously Jewish group celebrating the annual holiday Simchas Torah. According to accounts in The Daily Californian and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, one onlooker mocked the procession by goose-stepping in place, chanting “Heil Hitler,” and performing the Nazi salute. After punching Schwartz in the face and knocking him to the ground, the man and his two companions strolled away.

But many remember spring 2002 as the season the screaming really started. On spring break, someone hurled the cinderblock through the front door of Berkeley’s Hillel Center, scrawling the words F— JEWS nearby…

The same mentality was on display in spring 2002 at San Francisco State University, where pro-Israel students and elderly Holocaust survivors trying to hold a rally were stopped by violent protestors screaming “F– the Jews,” “Jews, go back to Russia,” “Too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job,” and “Get out or we’ll kill you.”

Threats of “we’ll kill you” appear to have led to the logical next step in the recent violent death of 38-year-old pro-Israel activist Daniel J. Kliman in San Francisco.

It appears that present-day northern California is to Jews what Mississippi in the early 20th Century was to African-Americans-the epicenter of explosive hate-although the same bigotry permeates much of the academic world.

That would include Concordia University in Montreal, where Netanyahu was prevented from speaking about the war against terrorism. Daniel Pipes, writing in the New York Post on September 17, 2002, described the violent scene:

“… he never made it onto the campus – because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot with the intent of preventing him from speaking…

The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience…
They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside.
They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto’s Globe & Mail
put it, “By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia’s main downtown building was
littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking
aftereffects of pepper spray.”

The police, saying they couldn’t assure Netanyahu’s safety, canceled the event…

On Thursday, Hanan Ashrawi, the former spokeswoman and colleague of Yasser Arafat, went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs to give a keynote speech at a symposium on “September 11: One Year Later.”

Protestors noted that Ashrawi is smack on the side of America’s enemies in the War on Terrorism. For example, while the U.S. government formally designates Hamas a terrorist group, Ashrawi states she doesn’t “think of Hamas as a terrorist group.” Also, she considers Israeli civilians living on the West Bank to be “legitimate . . . targets of Palestinian resistance” — that is, legitimate targets for deadly violence.

Yet the protestors did not block the terrorist spokeswoman from expressing her opinions (a mere year after the 9/11 attacks), and she is just one of countless pro-terror speakers who are welcome on US campuses. Sheikh Khalid Yasin, a convert to Islam, has been invited to numerous colleges to preach that terrorism is justified, homosexuals should be murdered, and Christian missionaries in Africa are injecting people with AIDS. …

Little wonder that when the genocide-espousing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University on September 24, 2007, the event did not seem out of the ordinary. His politely received speech was hailed by many observers as a fine display of one of the noblest ideals of institutions of higher learning -the free exchange of ideas.

Hardly anyone in the media noted that, the day before he departed for America, Ahmadinejad re-emphasized the two most heartfelt ideas to which he and his regime are dedicated–“Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” emblazoned on signs in a military parade over which he presided.

Were the deaths of America and Israel debatable propositions? For many in the academic world, the answer apparently is yes. After all, they would tell us, that’s what universities are for. Let all views be heard.

All views, that is, with certain exceptions, including the anti-terror message of the prime
minister of Israel.

Edward Olshaker is a longtime journalist whose work has appeared in History News Network, The Jewish Press, FrontPage Magazine, and other publications.

Most definately READ IT ALL

From the “Gotta Love It” file. EXTREMIST BEATEN UP OVER MOSQUE ATTACK

AN ISLAMIC extremist who hurled abuse at Britain’s home-coming troops has been beaten up by fellow Muslims.

Sayful Islam was set upon by moderates who say his controversial beliefs are making their lives hell.

Their mosque was firebombed after he led the now notorious protest against the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment’s homecoming parade in Luton in March.

Islam – former leader of the local branch of extreme Islamic group Al-Muhajiroun – told how he “felt elated’’ at the sight of terrorists steering two passenger jets into the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11.

But moderate Muslims claim the 29-year-old’s doctrine of hatred has led to them being shunned and want him driven out of town.

Since the Islamic Education Centre was burned down they have been left with nowhere to pray.

“The group did not like the fact his actions have caused them problems. They are now being treated as outsiders and extremists.

“Their place of worship has been firebombed. Luton has become a difficult place to be a Muslim thanks to Sayful.”

He added: “These people are not extremists and do not share his beliefs. They believe they are suffering unnecessarily because of his actions.

“Punches were thrown and Sayful legged it. He will be looking over his shoulder from now on.’’

(HH here: Sigh, even the “moderates” can’t seem to settle things peacefully!)

One Muslim posted on an Islamic website: “He got bust up. Wherever they go they’d best watch out.’’

One former worshipper at the bombed mosque said: “There has been some trouble. He was not badly hurt but he has not been seen since.

“Feelings are running high. The majority of people who attended the centre are not extreme in any way. They are peace-loving members of the community.”

(HH: Just don’t piss them off or they might beat you silly!!!)

Islam was unavailable for comment last night.