Arab propagandists, and many Westerners all too willing to take at face value their lies, blame the sufferings of the Palestinians on the Jews, specifically on Israel’s supposedly “brutal occupation” of Gaza and the West Bank. But do the facts justify this claim? Israel occupied these territories in 1967, as a result of Israel’s defeat of the aggression launched by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq. Israel was forced to maintain its sovereignty over these territories after the war because of the subsequent refusal of the Arab states to sign a peace treaty. (Egypt finally signed one in 1979 in exchange for the entire Sinai peninsula, and Jordan did the same in 1994 in exchange for thousands of acres of formerly Israeli land east of the Jordan River).
Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip lasted until 1994, when the Oslo peace accord brought Arafat and his terrorist army back from Tunis and established him as the head of the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and the West Bank. A brief review of neutral third-party analyses of Israel’s twenty-seven years of rule creates quite a different picture than the one presented by Arab propaganda, and establishes beyond reasonable doubt that under Israel’s rule, the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoyed more political freedom, were provided more educational opportunities, and experienced greater economic well-being than at any time in their history before or since.
It is, in fact, the governments of the Palestinian Authority, and now of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which have imposed a brutal, graft-ridden, dictatorship over the Palestinian people, destroying their economy and terrorizing their society, killing or imprisoning thousands of their own people, and crushing all the democratic freedoms that the Oslo Accords demanded. It is they, not Israel, who have shut down every opportunity to create a state for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28080
Contrary to the Arab propaganda myth that Israel is a colonizing state that sought to expand its territories at the Palestinian’s expense, Israel extended its sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip only reluctantly, and did so in the process of defending itself against Arab aggression in the 6-Day War. As soon as Israel had defeated the Arab armies, it offered to cede the captured territories in exchange for peace. Arab leadership uniformly rejected this offer. Israel was forced to retain sovereignty over these captured territories because the Arab policy had only in one objective—the obliteration of Israel.
Within a few days of the June 10, 1967 cease-fire, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Abba Eban, made his famous speech offering to negotiate the return of captured territories in exchange for three Arab concessions: diplomatic recognition of Israel; negotiations to decide on universally recognized borders and on other outstanding issues; and peace. World opinion was amazed that the victor was offering to negotiate with the vanquished and was willing to make substantial concessions (return of territories) in exchange for symbolic and diplomatic ones (recognition, negotiations, peace agreements). To formulate a response to this unexpected new reality, the Arab states called a summit meeting in Khartoum (capitol of Sudan) in August, 1967. The result was the now infamous three Khartoum NOs: no recognition, no negotiations, no peace.
The Benefits of Israeli Occupation
Despite being forced by Arab intransigence to maintain its sovereignty over the newly captured territories, and to maintain a state of war with the entire Arab world, Israel undertook the economic, agrarian, medical, and infrastructural development of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for the benefit of the Arab population, in the expectation that such development would yield what the Israeli government called a “peace dividend.”
This Israeli “mini-Marshall plan” for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip involved investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to bring these territories into the 20th century with regard to infrastructure, roads, sewerage, sewage treatment, electricity, phones, radio and TV broadcasting, water purification and water supply. World Bank records indicate that the GDP of the West Bank grew between 7% and 13% per year between 1967 and 1994. Tourism skyrocketed, unemployment almost disappeared as hundreds of thousands of Arabs worked in Israel’s economy earning far more than their counterparts in other Arab countries. Seven universities, funded in part by Israeli and private Jewish money, grew up on the West Bank in place of the three teachers training schools that existed there before 1967.
During the decades of Israeli sovereignty, there was almost complete freedom of movement throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israelis shopped in East Jerusalem and in Bethlehem and in Ramallah, while Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Arab students from the West Bank attended Haifa University’s Arab Studies department; and Arab Israelis could re-unite with relatives among the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although Jordan was still de iure at war with Israel, Israel permitted West Bank Arabs to retain their Jordanian citizenship, in the expectation that Israel and Jordan would reach a peace agreement and most (although probably not all) of the West Bank would revert to Jordan, and even allowed West Bank Arabs to cross freely over the Jordan River in to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Thus, West Bank Arabs on Jordanian passports could travel anywhere from Israel. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan revoked these passports and denied the West Bank Arabs their freedom of access and travel.
And, perhaps most significant of all, free and unencumbered access to Israel’s medical infrastructure resulted in a precipitous decline in infant mortality and a rise in longevity. The infant mortality rate was reduced from 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000. Under Israel’s systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases in the Palestinian population, such as polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles, were eradicated. A significant percentage of today’s Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are alive and well only because they had the good fortune of growing up under Israeli sovereignty.
During the two decades preceding the First Intifada, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102%, and the number of classes by 99%. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14% of adults over age 15 (compared with 61% in Egypt, 45% in Tunisia, and 44% in Syria). The rapid growth in population as a result of access to Israeli medicine, in addition to Arab immigration into the territories from “Diaspora Palestinians” all over the Arab world, resulted in a tripling of the Arab population from around 950,000 in 1967 to more than 3,000,000 in 1994.[6]
All this time the Arab nations remained formally at war with Israel. In 1979, Egypt, alone among the Arab states, agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel. In response to Egypt’s willingness to sign the peace, Israel withdrew its forces and civilian population from the Sinai.
Prime Minister Menahem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar es-Sadat invited Arafat to their peace table, but Arafat refused, and thus squandered what could have been yet another opportunity for Palestinian statehood. Sadat was then assassinated by Muslim radicals for making peace with the Jews.
In sum, there was not only no “brutal occupation,” there was a very fast paced, broadly implemented, and extremely successful economic and educational and medical and professional development of the Arab populations of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under very salutary Israeli rule, all initiated by the Israeli government, as part of Israel’s vain quest for peace with its Arab neighbors. Under Israeli sovereignty, the Arabs of these territories experienced greater personal and political freedom, and greater prosperity, than ever in their entire history.
But all of this came to a grinding halt when Arafat took over.
Arafat Takes Over and Destroys Palestinian Prosperity and Peace
When the 1993 Oslo Accords allowed Yasir Arafat to set up shop in the West Bank as the head of the newly created Palestinian Authority, the robust economy created in partnership with Israel began to grind to a halt, and then went into a steep reverse. By 2002, the West Bank’s GDP was one-tenth of what it was in 1993. Israel has been blamed worldwide for the economic plight of the Palestinians even though it was entirely the responsibility of Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Yet, the record, as registered in annual UN Human Development Reports, clearly shows that the Palestinian people were much better off under Israeli occupation than under the Palestine Authority’s control.
Data provided by the UN Human Development program of 2005 [7] indicate that the economic difficulties experienced by the Palestinian Arabs were largely the result of policies of the Arafat regime and not from any oppression by the State of Israel. Looking at what it calls “The Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT),” the UN report cites many examples of how positive trends in human development, initiated by Israel decades before, were reversed under Arafat. For instance, the second Intifada beginning in Sept. 2000 resulted “…in a sharp deterioration in living standards and life chances.” The poverty rate nearly tripled from 20% in 1999 to 55% in 2003. The report notes that because of the Intifada, the town of Nablus, for instance, a prosperous commercial hub prior to September 2000, became an economic basket case. Shops were closed; to survive, workers had to sell their tools, and farmers were forced to sell their land. It was Arafat’s war, not Israeli rule, which destroyed Palestinian prosperity and bled its people.[8]
A cruel irony, seemingly lost on western leadership and the media, is the fact that while the Palestinians receive more aid per capita than any nation in the world except Cape Verde (Africa), the Palestinian people have experienced a severe decline in economic well-being; because of Arafat’s terror war and his embezzlement of billions of dollars of this money for himself and his terror armies. The UN report suggests that Arafat diverted almost all of the aid money to his personal accounts and to his various terrorist militias. So the aid money, rather than helping the economy and thus creating conditions that would end violence, actually promoted violence.[9] The picture that arises from the UN 2005 report is a clear continuation of trends documented in the 2004 report.[10]
CONCLUSION
The anti Israel propaganda directed at the West cannot obscure the facts: the brutal oppression and economic deprivation from which Palestinians are suffering is the direct result of Palestinian misrule, and not Israeli occupation. From 1967 to 1994, under Israel’s sovereignty, the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoyed the highest standard of living and freedom (economic, personal, and political) in their entire history.
The anti-Israel diatribes of Arab propagandists and the Western “progressives” seek to deceive the uninformed by conflating Israel’s defensive actions today, which do indeed prevent freedom of movement as a way of preventing suicide attacks, with the entire 40 years of Israeli rule since the 6-day war. This is a lie of monstrous proportions, blaming the victim – Israel – for defending itself.
Equally reprehensible is the utter silence of Arab spokesmen and Western leftists about the crimes committed against the Palestinian people by their own leaders and by the leaders of neighboring Arab states.
Who is responsible for the plight of the Palestinians? From the data presented above, the answer is obvious. Their own leaders, both local and external, who have betrayed, cheated, intimidated, and oppressed them. Every opportunity for Palestinian statehood was rejected by leaders who chose war over peace, because their agenda was never peace but the elimination of the Jewish state.
NOTES:
References are to sources in the bibliography, listed by author. Where pages are not noted, the information has been summarized from broad segments of the authors’ works.
Much of the data and analysis for this article is taken from Meir-Levi, David, “Who is Really Oppressing the Palestinians?” Front Page Magazine, 2.3.06.
[1] Abu-Marzouk, Mousa, “Hamas’ Stand,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-marzook10jul10,0,1675308.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail (Marzouk is the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement)
[2] Note the Walt-Mearsheimer Report, President Carter’s recent book, and the Baker-Hamilton report -- all concluding that the “road to Baghdad is through Jerusalem.” In other words, if only we could solve the Israel-Arab conflict and end Israel’s “brutal occupation,” then we could finally have peace throughout the Middle East. As though it could be rationally argued that the barbaric internecine terror war in Iraq, Syria’s 32-year occupation of Lebanon, Sudan’s 24-year civil war in which Arab Muslim Sudanese have slaughtered nearly 2,000,000 black African Christian and Animist Sudanese and nearly another million black African Muslims, Algeria’s 10-year civil war in which more than 100,000 have been killed and nearly 2,000,000 rendered homeless, Mauritanian semi-legal slavery, Somalia’s endless chaos of warlords against warlords, el-Qaeda’s barbaric terrorism against the West, and even Iran’s threatening quests for WMDs in order to create a new world order in a world without America (and without Israel)…..would all somehow disappear if only Israel would make peace with the Palestinians.
[3] According to the 2003 UN Arab Human Development Report, “…the Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a severe impediment to human development. This occupation distorts policy priorities, retards human development and freezes opportunities for growth, prosperity and freedom across the region, and not in the Occupied Palestinian Territories alone. The harsh indignities arising from occupation extend to all the Arab people….The occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands exerts a direct and continuous burden on the economies of affected countries and diverts resources from development to military and security objectives. The threat of Israeli domination also creates a pretext for deferring political and economic reforms in Arab countries in the name of national solidarity against a formidably armed external aggressor.” (emphasis mine). Source: The United Nations Development Programme, Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, The Arab Human Development Report, 2003: Building a Knowledge Society. Web: www.un.org/Publications, and Web: www.undp.org/rbas. And cf. pp. 57 ff.
[4] Gilbert “History”, Idem “Routlege Atlas”, O’Brien, Oren.
[5] Oren, Sachar, and for an analysis of the legality of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, cf. Meir-Levi, David, Remembering The Six-Day War, Front Page Magazine, June 05, 2007
[6] Summarized from articles listed in “Economy of West Bank and Gaza Strip”(see below)
[7] UN Arab Human Development Program 2005
[8] Ibid, pp. 281 ff
[9] Ibid, pp. 312, ff
[10] UN Arab Human Development Program 2004
[11] Brown; Meir-Levi, “The Missing Piece is missing pieces”, “Left Wing Monsters”, “Islamokaze war and Palestinian poverty”; and Walsh, Elsa, “The Prince,” New Yorker Magazine, March 24, 2003, pp. 49ff.
[12] Erlanger, Steven and Kershner, Isabel, “With Pressure put on Hamas, Gaza is cut off,” NY Times, July 10, 2007; and cf a variety of other news sources for Hamas’ threatening military attacks on Israeli trucks bringing produce in to the Gaza Strip.
[13] For the most recent details of the chaos in Gaza under Hamas, cf. Erlanger, Steven, “A Life of Unrest,” New York Times, July 15, 2007, New York Times
[14] Mahmoud az-Zahar, a high level leader of Hamas, was interviewed frequently after Hamas came to power in the Gaza Strip. Summaries of his interviews on el-Jazeera and ‘Ilaf (an Egyptian on-line news website), from which the comments above have been drawn, can be found at Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), 10.09, 2005 (and cf. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/hamastan_e.htm), in a Newsweek news summary of August 30, 2005, ( “The Last Word: Mahmoud Zahar:In Praise of 'Hamastan,'” Newsweek International, Sept. 5, 2005 issue ), and in Front Page Magazine (“The Nightmare of Hamastan,” by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, FrontPageMagazine.com, 10.31.2005). Osama Hamdan, an official Hamas spokesperson, stated Hamas’ goal in similarly stark terms in a recent interview on Lebanese TV (MEMRI Special Dispatch Series - No. 1682 August 16, 2007, excerpted from an interview on Al-Kawthar TV on August 6, 2007. And cf. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1527.htm. “The Final Goal of the Resistance is to Wipe This Entity [Israel] Off the Face of the Earth").
Bibliography:
Bard, Mitchell The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Middle East Conflict
Idem Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Brown, Nathan Palestinian Politics
Gilbert, Martin The Arab-Israel Conflict in Maps (1977)
The Routlege Atlas of the Arab Israel Conflict: 2002
History of Israel
Hart, Alan Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker (Authorized biography)
Karsh, E Fabricating Israeli History: The “New Historians” 1997
Arafat’s War (2003)
“Arafat's Grand Strategy”, Middle East Quarterly, 8.3.04
Meir-Levi, David Big Lies (2005)
Idem articles in Front Page Magazine
“Islamikaze War and Palestinian Poverty,” 9/15/04
“The Missing Peace is missing pieces”, 11/24/04
“Left Wing Monsters: Arafat” Front Page Magazine, 9/23/05
“Occupation and Settlement”, 6/24/05
“The Big Arab Lie”, 5/15/05
“Who is Really Oppressing the Palestinians?” 2/3/06
“Remembering the Six-Day War”, 6/5/07 .
O’Brien, Conor Cruise The Siege
Oren, Michael. Six Days of War
PBS. 50-year war: Israel and the Arabs (DVD 1993, 2000)
Sachar, Howard. A History of Israel: Rise of Zionism to our time (2003)
UN Arab Human Development Program 2003, http://www.undp.org/ (2004).
UN Arab Human Development Program 2004, http://www.undp.org/ (2005).
Walsh, Elsa. "The Prince”, New Yorker Magazine, 3.24.03
Bibliography for the economy of West Bank & Gaza Strip,
Under Israel,1967-1994, and under the Palestinian Authority, 1994 to 2004
Abu Toameh, Khaled & Derfner, Larry, “A state of Corruption”, Nation and World, 7/1/02
Clawson, Patrick "The Palestinians' Lost Marshall Plans", deputy director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Doron, Daniel, “The Way forward for the Palestinians”, Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, 7/1/02, vol 7, #41
Ehrenfeld, Dr. D., "Where does the money go? A study of the Palestinian Authority", Testimony before the US Congress and the House Armed Services Committee.
Eidelberg, Dr. Paul, “Occupied Territories” eidelberg@foundation1.org, 7/18/03
Karsch, Efraim, “What Occupation”, Commentary, 7/2002
“Who Ruined Gaza?” National Post, 9/16/05
Mannes, Aaron, “Strategy for Israel: A real peace plan,” NRO (National Review on Line, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mannesprint120401.html), Dec. 4, 2001
Marsden, Keith, “Another View: the Viability of Palestine,” Wall Street Journal, Europe, 4.28.02
MEMI special dispatch Series #390, A Kuwaiti Daily Reports “Arafat Deposited $5.1 Million from Arab Funds into His Personal Account.”
Pipes, Daniel, “Anti-Israel Terror Backfires”, New York Sun, 4/20/04
Wall Street Journal, Economy summary, 4.28.02 (Under the Israeli military occupation from 1967 to 1990, Gaza and the West Bank made enormous economic progress as a result of Israeli investment).
Zwick, Israel. “New UN Document Refutes Palestinian Claims”, TheRaphi.com in http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/.
FORGED IN FAITH: A blog about Faith, Social Issues, Politics, Life and Family from a Christian perspective.
Monday, May 23, 2011
UNDERSTANDING THE SO-CALLED "OCCUPATION"
For several decades, no term has dominated the discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than "occupation," a reference to Israel's supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. Critics of Israel routinely invoke this presence to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict with the Palestinians, to describe the allegedly brutal and repressive nature of Israeli policy, and to justify or rationalize terrorist atrocities aimed against Israel.
"Occupation" not only refers specifically to Israel's control of the West Bank, an area that it conquered during the Six-Day War of June 1967, but more generally to an uninterrupted narrative of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel in 1948 on "stolen" land. As a propaganda tool, this narrative has an undeniable power. But in almost every particular, it is also demonstrably false.
In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this area was the state of the Jews, until its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, “Palestine” had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial -- to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect -- and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for a homeland, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab. The designated territory of the prospective Arab state was slated to include, among other areas, Gaza and the West Bank.
The implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the (unsuccessful) effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states in 1948 to destroy the Jewish state at its birth. But even if the Jews had lost that war, their territory would not have been handed over to those who are now referred to as “the Palestinians.” Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, because none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as comprising a distinct nation. (The eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946: "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.")
The period after 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza passed into the hands of Israel, is a separate matter. This "occupation" did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against another pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Israel was in the West Bank because that is where opposing armies had massed against it.
The “Oslo” peace declaration signed in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which time Israel and the Palestinians were to negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.
By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1 of that year, Yasser Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat's failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank's populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.
Since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, some 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation.
There remains the issue of Israeli settlements, civilian communities situated in the lands that Israel captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The latter two areas are officially under military occupation by the international community, though they are governed by Israeli civil law. As of November 2009, approximately 280,000 Israelis lived in 121 West Bank settlements, while another 190,000 Israelis lived in East Jerusalem. At one time, there were also 18 Israeli settlements in the Sinai Peninsula and 21 in the Gaza Strip, but Israel withdrew entirely from those areas in 1982 and 2005, respectively.
Israeli settlements fall into five distinct categories:
It was in 1994, when Palestinians came under the autonomous and independent control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), that the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip became crippled and the lives of the Palestinians were wrecked by the PA’s despotic, terrorist rule. By 2003, the West Bank’s Gross Domestic Product had shrunk by 90 percent since the PA’s initial ascent to power.
Adapted from: "What Occupation?" (Efraim Karsh, July-August 2002), and "Occupation and Settlement: The Myth and the Reality" (David Meir-Levi, June 5, 2005).
"Occupation" not only refers specifically to Israel's control of the West Bank, an area that it conquered during the Six-Day War of June 1967, but more generally to an uninterrupted narrative of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel in 1948 on "stolen" land. As a propaganda tool, this narrative has an undeniable power. But in almost every particular, it is also demonstrably false.
In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this area was the state of the Jews, until its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, “Palestine” had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial -- to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect -- and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for a homeland, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab. The designated territory of the prospective Arab state was slated to include, among other areas, Gaza and the West Bank.
The implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the (unsuccessful) effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states in 1948 to destroy the Jewish state at its birth. But even if the Jews had lost that war, their territory would not have been handed over to those who are now referred to as “the Palestinians.” Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, because none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as comprising a distinct nation. (The eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946: "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.")
The period after 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza passed into the hands of Israel, is a separate matter. This "occupation" did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against another pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Israel was in the West Bank because that is where opposing armies had massed against it.
The “Oslo” peace declaration signed in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which time Israel and the Palestinians were to negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.
By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1 of that year, Yasser Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat's failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank's populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.
Since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, some 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation.
There remains the issue of Israeli settlements, civilian communities situated in the lands that Israel captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The latter two areas are officially under military occupation by the international community, though they are governed by Israeli civil law. As of November 2009, approximately 280,000 Israelis lived in 121 West Bank settlements, while another 190,000 Israelis lived in East Jerusalem. At one time, there were also 18 Israeli settlements in the Sinai Peninsula and 21 in the Gaza Strip, but Israel withdrew entirely from those areas in 1982 and 2005, respectively.
Israeli settlements fall into five distinct categories:
- Agrarian settlements for military purposes, manned mostly by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers: These settlements were established soon after the 1948 war, along what the IDF felt were crucial corridors of defense, especially along the Jordan river, near the “Green Line,” in the Golan Heights, and near Gaza. These settlements were intended primarily to serve a strategic military defensive purpose, in light of these vital facts: Egypt, Syria and Jordan remained belligerent states; the PLO was actively trying to develop bases for terrorism in the newly conquered territories; and Israel had previously been invaded across these territories.
- Settlements of Jews returning to sites (Hebron, Gush Etzion, Jewish Quarter) occupied by Jews prior to 1948: Settlement of civilian Israelis in the West Bank began shortly after the Six Day War. Jews had lived in Hebron almost continuously for some 3,100 years, and were expelled only during the violent Arab pogroms of 1929 in which hundreds were slaughtered. Jewish habitation in Jerusalem had a similar millennia-long history, with the 1948 war and the massacre of about half of the population of the Jewish Quarter terminating the Jewish presence there.
- Expanding suburbs of Israeli cities on or near the “Green Line”: Unoccupied areas near Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were used as sites for major low-cost housing projects to accommodate the expanding populations of those regions. In most cases, the land utilized for these projects was Jordanian “Crown Land,” to which no individual could lay claim of private ownership. Because of Jordan’s unwillingness to enter into peace negotiations after the war, Israel’s expropriation of these unoccupied areas was legal. In cases where West Bank Arabs legally owned land that Israel wanted for these expansion projects, Israel bought the land at fair market prices.
- Missionary settlements unrelated to the previous three types: Over time, religious and right-wing political pressure supported the creation of settlements elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Often they were founded near ancient Jewish holy sites. These settlements proliferated under Prime Ministers Begin and Rabin. Arab spokesmen claim that these settlements, some of which were built well inside the West Bank or Gaza Strip areas, constituted a theft of land from Arab farmers. Israel claims that most of the land used for these developments was unoccupied and un-owned, thus qualifying as “Crown Land,” upon which Israel had every legal right to build and develop. Where privately owned land was needed for settlement expansion, Israel purchased that land from its legal owners at fair market values.
- Patently illegal rogue settlements: These settlements were set up by break-away settlement occupants, often contrary to IDF and/or government instructions, sometimes on privately owned Palestinian land. Palestinian complaints about such illegal land grabs have been adjudicated in the Israeli court system with decisions often rendered in favor of the Palestinians. It was almost exclusively this type of settlement on the West Bank that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to dismantle even before peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
It was in 1994, when Palestinians came under the autonomous and independent control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), that the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip became crippled and the lives of the Palestinians were wrecked by the PA’s despotic, terrorist rule. By 2003, the West Bank’s Gross Domestic Product had shrunk by 90 percent since the PA’s initial ascent to power.
Adapted from: "What Occupation?" (Efraim Karsh, July-August 2002), and "Occupation and Settlement: The Myth and the Reality" (David Meir-Levi, June 5, 2005).
Sunday, May 22, 2011
THE RATIONALITY BEHIND A CRIMINAL MIND
On July 23, 2002, the IDF dropped a bomb on a Gaza apartment building, killing terrorist leader Salah Shehadeh, commander of the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas.
The following interview with Shehadeh was published by Islam Online on May 29, 2002. Aish.com presents the interview as a curious look into a terrorist's mind.Q: How do you choose who will carry out a martyrdom operation?
Shehadeh: The choice is made according to four criteria: First, devout religious observance. Second, we verify that the young man complies with his parents' wishes and is loved by his family, and that his martyrdom will not [adversely] affect family life ― that is, he is not the head of the family and he has siblings, as we will not take an only child.
Third, his ability to carry out the task assigned [to] him, and to understand its gravity; and fourth, his martyrdom should encourage others to carry out martyrdom operations and encourage Jihad in the hearts of people. We always prefer unmarried [men]. It is the regional leadership of the military apparatus of the Hamas movement that proposes his candidacy, and then decides whether to accept him.
Q: How do you account for the stream of youths [coming] to join the ranks of perpetrators of martyrdom operations? And does this attest to [mental] health, or to escape from the frustration and disappointment among the Palestinians?
Shehadeh: The stream of youths [who seek to] attain martyrdom shows [mental] health and the awareness of Palestinian society, and is not a mistake or an escape from a situation of despair or frustration. Many people come to Jihad, and they are willing to lay down their souls ― which is the most precious thing a man has. There is a vast difference between someone who sacrifices money or an offering, and someone who sacrifices his soul for the sake of Allah to bring happiness to the nation, and to remove its torment and distress.
Nevertheless, we cannot provide everyone with a martyrdom operation because the targets are limited and the enemy positions we want to reach are highly fortified. If some of the youths do not follow the military apparatus's instructions, and [set out on operations on their own] without being linked officially to this apparatus, this proves that the [entire] nation has become a nation of Jihad on the threshold of liberation, and that it rejects humiliation and submission.
Q: How does the military apparatus choose a target?
Shehadeh: We have surveillance groups whose role is to monitor Israeli and settler patrols and the movement of the enemy on the border. We utilize every breach we find in the enemy's security fence. Afterwards we define the target and the nature of the assault on it, whether it is a settlement, a military post, a military vehicle, or anything else. The target is filmed, and then [the video] is shown to a committee appointed by the General Staff of the Military Operations.
After the target is approved, the martyrdom operation's perpetrator is trained... Then the operation is ready to go, after a group of experts approves the plan and determines the factors for its success or failure.
Q: What about killing Israeli citizens?
Shehadeh: We do not target children, the elderly, and places of worship, although these places of worship incite to murdering Muslims. Similarly, we have not targeted schools, because we do not give orders to kill children. The same goes for hospitals, although this is easy for us, and attainable.
We act according to the principles of Jihad to which we adhere. Our motto is: “We are not fighting the Jews because they are Jews, but because they occupy our land. We are not fighting them because of their religion but because they have usurped our land.” If we kill a child it is not intentional...
Q: How much does a martyrdom operation cost?
Shehadeh: The cost of an operation varies... Attack operations with automatic weapons cost the price of the weapon, which hold at least 250 rounds, and of the ammunition, and the price of about 10 hand grenades. But some of the operations cost much more and include transporting [the perpetrator]... buying a car, and bribing Jewish collaborators. There are operations that cost a great deal ― between $3,500-$50,000, in accordance with the target.
Q: How did you develop the weapons that the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades have come to excel at manufacturing, such as the Al-Qassam 1 and Al-Qassam 2 and the and the Al-Bana [rockets]?
Shehadeh: ...We have scientists who specialize in weapons development, who are today studying and conducting experiments on the Al-Bana rocket, which is a combination of an RPG and a LAW [light anti-tank weapon], and differs from the Al-Qassam 2 because it is designed for moderately thick armor. Hand grenades are manufactured to meet the needs of the apparatus and its members, and they have proved their efficiency, and [even] the Zionist Defense Ministry attests that they are powerful grenades.
The rocket explosives are made from simple raw materials. Even the women can make them at home.
All the grenades and rockets are locally manufactured, easily and simply. The explosives in the Al-Qassam 1 and 2 and the Al Bana are made from simple raw materials. [Even] the women can make them at home...
Q: What about the organizational structure of the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades?
Shehadeh: In general, the brigades are a small army subject to political decisions, like any [other] army in the world. It has all the kinds of divisions and structures that an army has. We are soldiers. The political apparatus does not tell us, 'Do such and such' and 'Carry out this or that operation'; the political apparatus is sovereign over the military apparatus, and a decision of the political [echelon] takes precedence over the decision of the military [echelon], without intervening in military operations.
The number of dead depends on the will of Allah.The success of an operation is not defined by the number of enemy dead, but by the extent to which our Jihad fighters managed to reach the target, and by the operation's execution. Good planning is vital for the operation's success. The number of dead depends on the will of Allah.
Q: What are the obstacles that the Al-Qassam Brigades face?
Sh'hadeh: The most significant obstacles are the scarcity of good-quality weapons, such as anti-aircraft and long-range missiles.
Another significant obstacle is the haze obscuring the political position of the National [Palestinian] Authority. This causes confusion in the military wing [because] it does not set a [clear] position regarding the military operations ― that is, whether it is for them or against them. Is it an authority for national liberation, or an authority for autonomy? This matter confuses many Jihad fighters.
In addition, weapons prices have been raised by the bloodsucker arms dealers, so the price of an M-16 has reached $5,000, and each of its bullets now costs $1.50, and a Kalashnikov costs $2,000, and each of its bullets costs $4.00.
The military apparatus has managed to meet the challenge of weapons scarcities by collecting donations from people who love supporting the path of Jihad for the sake of Allah. Similarly, the movement has succeeded in manufacturing some of the intermediate weaponry, thus reducing costs. The cost of a rocket [made by the movement] is less than 1 percent of its cost if we had to buy it.
http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48894712.html
MUSLIM IMBREEDING: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society .
Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring's intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings
More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:
Low intelligence
Mental and physical diseases and death
Implications for the Western and the Muslim World
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010081111313/life-and-science/culture-wars/muslim-inbreeding-impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society.htmlNicolai Sennels is a psychologist and author of “Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experiences from Copenhagen Municipality.”
The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. In order to keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule.
Another historical example is the royal houses of Europe where royal families often married among each other because tradition did not allow them to marry people of non-royal class.
The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.
The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world's oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants"
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred - which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequenses greatly.
The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants".).
More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:
The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders." (Times of India, 17/11 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).
The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.
Low intelligence
Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
"Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.
IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies." (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children").
The article "Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices" concludes that "Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status." (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).
Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: "The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage." (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation"). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that "The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages."
Mental and physical diseases and death
The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants). One study analyzed the risk of perinatal death (the child dies during its own birth), infant death (child dies while still infant) and autosomal recessive disorders (serious and often deadly genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy):
Perinatal mortality in the Pakistani children was 1.5 times higher than that in the Norwegian children, and infant mortality in the Pakistani children was more than double that in the Norwegian children. Deaths due to autosomal recessive disorders were 18 times more common in the Pakistani children. Similarly, deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common.
There are also evidence suggesting that inbred people has a higher risk of developing mental disorders: "The clinical observations indicated that depression is very high in some communities where the consanguinity of marriages is also high." (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 "Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population".
Another study focused on the relationship between intermarriage and schizophrenia: "The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness." (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors in the ethiology of the schizophrenic
disorders.
disorders.
The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: "In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background." (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007 Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane).
Implications for the Western and the Muslim World
The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:
Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.
The economic costs and consequences for society of inbreeding are of course secondary to the reality of human suffering.
However, inbreeding among Muslims has severe implications for both the Western societies and the Muslim world.
Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants drains the budget for other public services: "When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child - it costs municipal funds dearly. Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. ... Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background." (BT, 10/11 2003 Immigrants inbreeding costing one million.
On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who - because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents - are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment.
The same goes for Muslims in USA, where the Gallup Institute made a study involving 300.000 people concluding "The majority of Muslims in USA have a lower income, are less educated and have worse jobs than the population as a whole." (Berlingske Tidende, d. 3. marts 2009: Muslims thrive in USA.
The cognitive consequences of Muslim inbreeding might explain why non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the Danish army's intelligence test than native Danes: "19.3% of non-Western immigrants are not able to pass the Danish army's intelligence test. In comparison, only 4.7% of applicants with Danish background do not pass." (TV 2 Nyhederne, 13/6 2007 Immigrants flunk army test.
It probably also explains - at least partly - why two thirds of all immigrant school children with Arabic backgrounds are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system: "Those who speak Arabic with their parents have an extreme tendency to lack reading abilities - 64 percent are illiterate. ... No matter if it concerns reading abilities, mathematics or science, the pattern is the same: The bilingual (largely Muslim) immigrants' skills are exceedingly poor compared to their Danish classmates." (Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, May 2007: Ethnic students does not make Danish children worse.
The high expenses on special education for slow learners consumes one third of the budget for the Danish schools. "Immigrant children are clearly overrepresented on Copenhagen's schools for retarded children and children with physical handicaps. ... 51 percent of the children on the three schools in Copenhagen for children with physical and mental handicaps har immigrant back ground and on one of the schools the amount is 70 percent. ... These amounts are significantly higher than the share of immigrant children in the municipality, which is 33 percent. The many handicapped children are a clear evidence that there are many intermarried parents in the immigrant families." (Jydske Vestkysten, 4/4 2009 Tosprogede i overtal på handicapskoler).
Our high level of education may also make it harder for inbred students to follow and finish their studies: "Young people with minority backgrounds have a significantly higher dropout rate at secondary schools than youth with a Danish background. For trade school education, the dropout rate among immigrants is 60 percent, twice as high among adolescents with a Danish background....
There is great variation in educational outcomes when compared with national origin. For example, dropout among young people with Lebanese or Iranian background is far greater than among people of Vietnamese background." (Center for Knowledge on Integration in Randers, May 2005 "Youth, education and integration"). "Among immigrant children that are born and raised in Denmark, more than a third has no education. Among native Danes it is less than one fifth that do not get an education. (Statistics Denmark: "Indvandrere i 2007".
The negative consequences of inbreeding are also vast for the Muslim world. Inbreeding may thus explain why only nine Muslims ever managed to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize (5 of them won the "Peace Prize" - for peace that turned out not to last for very long).
The limited ability to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge following a limited IQ is probably also partly the reason why Muslim countries produce 1/10 of the World average when it comes to scientific research: "In 2003, the world average for production of articles per million inhabitants was 137, whereas none of the 47 OIC countries for which there were data achieved production above 107 per million inhabitants. The OIC average was just 13." (Nature 444, p. 26-27, 1. November 2006 "Islam and science: The data gap".
The lack of interest in science and human development in the Muslim World is also clear in the UN Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR). AHDR concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year:
"The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa'moun's [sic] time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year." (Eugene Rogan "Arab Books and human development". Index of Censorship, vol. 33, issue 2 April 2004, p. 152-157). "70 percent of the Turkish citizens never read books."(APA, 23 February 2009 ")
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims' religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. The overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences have been explained above.
Compassion for the health of future generations should be enough to ban intermarriage among first cousins. The economic and societal consequences do also count. Such a ban would also lessen Muslim immigration to the West because many Muslim families would like to be able to continue their practice of intermarriage in order to live up to cultural and religious traditions and keep wealth and power inside their family.
A legislative ban on first cousin marriages is a logical and compassionate imperative for both the Muslim world, for EU and our Western national governments.
Other articles by Nicolai Sennels:
- Interview to EuropeNews, marts 31st 2009
"Danish psychologist: "Integration of Muslims in Western societies is not possible". - Interview to The German Review of Books, December 2009: The one thing Muslim immigrants fear is being deported
- Interview to the Finnish Hommaforum, December 17th 2009: An interview with Nicolai Sennels
- Gates of Vienna, April 11th 2010: The Stigmatization Fallacy
- Article in New English Review, May 2010: Muslims and Westerners: The psychological differences
- Review on Gates of Vienna, May 8th 2010: Islam Means Never Having to say you're sorry
- Interview in FrontPage Magazine, May 5th 2010: Among Criminal Muslims
- Conference on FrontPageMagazine, June 21st 2010: A psychiatric Conference on Truthful Girl
- Article on Europenews.dk, 5. februar 2010: Sexual abuse widespread among Muslims
- 180Grader, europenews.dk, GatesofVienna etc., July 28th 2010: Open letter to David Cameron regarding Turkey
MAY 21, 2011 came and passed, and Harold Camping proved to be a nut.
Harold Camping, the popular evangelical radio host predicted that the world would end on May 21, 2011. As you can see, nothing happened. What are the lessons we can draw from this disgraced "prophet"? First of all, no man on earth, no matter how "Christian" he is, can, accurately, prophesied the exact day of the end of the world or the coming of Jesus. Jesus himself said, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mat. 24:36). In other words, Jesus told his disciples that the time of his second coming and the end of the world is hidden from men, it is God the only one who knows about the Judgment Day.
Second, it is a complete nonsense and a mockery to the Christian faith to pretend to know the date of the second coming of Christ and of the end of the world. Camping has made of himself a no-credible person in both spheres, Christian and non-Christian. Because of him, many mockers and anti-God will have a picnick-day attacking the Christian faith and laughing at Christians.
And lastly, the fact that Harold Camping's "prophecies" did not come true, it does not mean that the prophecies about the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world will not happen. Jesus will come to earth again, he said it; the end of this human system will end, the Hebrew prophets say that. When? How? we do not know, in the meantime we need to live according to the will of God.
CORRUPT DICTATOR HUGO CHAVEZ AND HIS SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
Since 1979, the U.S. has maintained a list of nations it judges to be state sponsors of terrorism.
The list is a regular reminder of the enduring threat to international peace and security posed by the
secretive alliances between non-state terrorist organizations and states run by dangerous leaders who employ or support violence against their enemies.
Operating outside the norms of international law and disregarding shared obligations to work for common security, these “terror list” nations ruthlessly support terrorists as proxies to advance their interests. In the 21st century, terrorism has become a regular means for waging “asymmetrical” warfare against militarily superior enemies or for backing clients in other countries. Globalization allows transnational networks to routinely link parties that are committed to terrorism, violence, and criminality, and are a major threat to U.S. security.
As of 2009, the U.S. listed four nations—Syria, Cuba, Sudan, and Iran—as state sponsors of terrorism.
A fifth country, Venezuela, merits a place on this list because of its support for acts of terrorism and subversion committed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and because of its strategic alignment with the other four state sponsors of terrorism, particularly Iran.
...Venezuela has forged closer ties with Syria and Sudan, associated with anti-Israel extremists, and endorsed Iran’s efforts to become a regional and global nuclear power. Chávez has proclaimed his readiness to work with Iran to defeat “the [American] empire and its lackeys.
...Washington is all too familiar with Chávez’s readiness to align himself with all current state sponsors of terrorism and to fan the flames of turmoil in the Middle East and the Americas. He has risen to high stature as an international firebrand and a dedicated leader of the anti-Americanism of the 21st century. Placing Venezuela where it belongs, on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, will not resolve every challenge the U.S. faces with regard to Venezuela, but it will send a powerful signal that the American people understand that oil, extremism, terror, and anti-Americanism make a dangerous mixture, whether in the Middle East or
the Americas.(For a complete report, click the link below)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/bg_2362.pdf
CORRUPT DICTATOR HUGO CHAVEZ AND HIS CONNECTIONS WITH THE NARCOS
The record will show that the May 9 extradition by Colombia of Walid Makled Garcia to Venezuela constitutes a major lost opportunity for the Obama Administration to interrogate and prosecute a Venezuelan drug kingpin with close ties to high-level Venezuelan officials and to expose the depth of narco-corruption within the Hugo Chavez regime in Venezuela.
Makled’s extradition follows the decision by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and the Colombian courts to honor the Venezuelan request for extradition over a similar request made by the U.S. In exchange for Makled, the Colombians are banking on closer commercial and security ties, including reduced support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), with the imperious and unpredictable Chavez.
The relationship between Chavez and the narco-terrorists of the FARC is again the subject of careful international scrutiny following release of a detailed examination and analysis of links between the FARC and Venezuela by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The study includes the most complete set of documents recovered from the laptop of Raul Reyes, the FARC’s chief of staff, who was killed during a daring military strike by Colombian forces in March 2008 in his safe haven on Ecuador’s soil.
The study reviews the long record of collaboration by Chávez and his top confidants with the FARC, which they viewed as “an ally that would keep U.S. and Colombian military strength in the region tied down in counterinsurgency, helping to reduce perceived threats against Venezuela.”
(For a complete article, click the link below)
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/10/weakness-on-chavez-drugs-and-terror-plague-obama%e2%80%99s-latin-america-policy/
Makled’s extradition follows the decision by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and the Colombian courts to honor the Venezuelan request for extradition over a similar request made by the U.S. In exchange for Makled, the Colombians are banking on closer commercial and security ties, including reduced support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), with the imperious and unpredictable Chavez.
The relationship between Chavez and the narco-terrorists of the FARC is again the subject of careful international scrutiny following release of a detailed examination and analysis of links between the FARC and Venezuela by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The study includes the most complete set of documents recovered from the laptop of Raul Reyes, the FARC’s chief of staff, who was killed during a daring military strike by Colombian forces in March 2008 in his safe haven on Ecuador’s soil.
The study reviews the long record of collaboration by Chávez and his top confidants with the FARC, which they viewed as “an ally that would keep U.S. and Colombian military strength in the region tied down in counterinsurgency, helping to reduce perceived threats against Venezuela.”
(For a complete article, click the link below)
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/10/weakness-on-chavez-drugs-and-terror-plague-obama%e2%80%99s-latin-america-policy/
From one dictator to another dictator to another: Venezuela, Iran, North Korea
The Berlin-based daily Die Welt published a news story on May 13 citing “Western security sources” who reported that Venezuela’s authoritarian strongman Hugo Chavez secretly met in February 2011 with the chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Air Force, Amir al-Hadschisadeh.
The pair, according to Die Welt, finalized the location for a missile base, said to be located on the Peninsula de Paraguana, a jut of land 120 kilometers from the Colombian border. Engineers from the Iranian state-owned construction agency Khatam al-Anbia, Die Welt added, have already begun preliminary work on the base.
Thus far there has been no response from the Obama Administration.
Chavez has long expressed interest in acquiring Russian-made missiles. He has purchased and showcased hundreds of shoulder-fired IGLA surface-to-air missiles and has been in the market for Russian S-300 missiles, the same powerful weapon that Russia has thus far denied to Iran. Chavez claims that U.S. aggression is his number one security threat.
More than one report on Iran’s missile intentions surfaced late last year. With the help of North Korea, Iran continues to extend its missile range capability and may now have weapons with sufficient capacity to reach the U.S. Add a nuclear weapon or WMD and one has a prescription for another Cuban missile crisis.
The central question that must be asked with increased urgency is: To what lengths will Chavez go to demonstrate the operational commitment of his alliance with Iran? Is this alliance one of rhetorical convenience filled with venom and bluster but little concrete action? Or is it an increasingly cooperative and operational venture that aims at accumulating military power, sharing resources (including access to uranium), and exploiting petroleum ties that will, as Chavez routinely promises, “hasten the end of U.S. imperialism”?
For the Obama Administration—which has for the most part refused to take the Chavez challenge seriously and consistently downplays potential strategic security threats in the Western Hemisphere—another unconfirmed press report may be easy to ignore.
This would be the wrong approach. The Administration should be open, frank, and authoritative in responding to an issue of high security importance.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/17/chavez-iran-and-missiles-a-dangerous-step/
The pair, according to Die Welt, finalized the location for a missile base, said to be located on the Peninsula de Paraguana, a jut of land 120 kilometers from the Colombian border. Engineers from the Iranian state-owned construction agency Khatam al-Anbia, Die Welt added, have already begun preliminary work on the base.
Thus far there has been no response from the Obama Administration.
Chavez has long expressed interest in acquiring Russian-made missiles. He has purchased and showcased hundreds of shoulder-fired IGLA surface-to-air missiles and has been in the market for Russian S-300 missiles, the same powerful weapon that Russia has thus far denied to Iran. Chavez claims that U.S. aggression is his number one security threat.
More than one report on Iran’s missile intentions surfaced late last year. With the help of North Korea, Iran continues to extend its missile range capability and may now have weapons with sufficient capacity to reach the U.S. Add a nuclear weapon or WMD and one has a prescription for another Cuban missile crisis.
The central question that must be asked with increased urgency is: To what lengths will Chavez go to demonstrate the operational commitment of his alliance with Iran? Is this alliance one of rhetorical convenience filled with venom and bluster but little concrete action? Or is it an increasingly cooperative and operational venture that aims at accumulating military power, sharing resources (including access to uranium), and exploiting petroleum ties that will, as Chavez routinely promises, “hasten the end of U.S. imperialism”?
For the Obama Administration—which has for the most part refused to take the Chavez challenge seriously and consistently downplays potential strategic security threats in the Western Hemisphere—another unconfirmed press report may be easy to ignore.
This would be the wrong approach. The Administration should be open, frank, and authoritative in responding to an issue of high security importance.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/17/chavez-iran-and-missiles-a-dangerous-step/
Osama bin Laden may have died but Al Qaeda is still active!
After Osama bin Laden’s death, it is clear that the war on terrorism is not over.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the former al-Qaeda’s number two, may take over as bin Laden’s heir, unless the interim operations leader Saif al-Adel, the former Egyptian commando with Iranian ties, gets the job. In the meantime, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the most active and dangerous of al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist organizations, has embarked upon expanding the global reach of its supporters.
AQAP recently translated al-Qaeda’s online journal Inspire into Russian in an effort to attract the jihadis from the embattled North Caucasus and other Muslim-populated parts of Russia.
North Caucasus terrorists have been using radical Salafi Islam to recruit disgruntled youth who grew up on the battlefields of the two Chechen wars (1994–1996 and 1999–2004). One of the first to do that, Shamil Basayev, was the mastermind of the Dubrovka and Beslan hostage takings. His successor, Doku Umarov, managed to strengthen the ties with local Islamic communities and claimed the establishment of the “Caucasus Emirate,” a pan-Caucasus terrorist group fighting “jihad against the infidels” and for an Islamic emirate consisting of all the North Caucasus.
Umarov launched an even greater terror campaign and is allegedly behind for the suicide bombing at the Domodedovo Airport in January, two suicide bombings in Moscow in March 2010, and the Nevsky Express bombing in November 2009. The Caucasus Emirate is one of the most active terrorist battlefronts today and is responsible for the daily attacks on innocent civilians, police stations, and government offices throughout Russia and the Caucasus.
The North Caucasus has been on al-Qaeda’s radar screen for a decade and a half. Zawahiri visited the region in mid-1990s and was arrested (and subsequently released) by the Russians—for reasons which are still unclear. He identified the Caucasus as one of the primary fronts in the war against Russia and the West.
...
After bin Laden’s death, al-Qaeda is clearly committed to expand its theaters of operations and reaching out to affiliates, including those in Russia. This is hardly surprising, as Chechen terrorists fight in Afghanistan alongside al-Qaeda and were even jailed in Guantanamo.
It is time for the Kremlin to recognize this threat and stop the usual propaganda narrative of anti-Americanism. As for the United States, we should continue our commitment to the war on terrorism and prevent al-Qaeda affiliates to find a new safe haven and new allies in the poorly governed North Caucasus.
(for a complete report, click the link below)
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/after-bin-laden%e2%80%99s-death-al-qaeda-turns-to-the-north-caucasus/
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the former al-Qaeda’s number two, may take over as bin Laden’s heir, unless the interim operations leader Saif al-Adel, the former Egyptian commando with Iranian ties, gets the job. In the meantime, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the most active and dangerous of al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist organizations, has embarked upon expanding the global reach of its supporters.
AQAP recently translated al-Qaeda’s online journal Inspire into Russian in an effort to attract the jihadis from the embattled North Caucasus and other Muslim-populated parts of Russia.
North Caucasus terrorists have been using radical Salafi Islam to recruit disgruntled youth who grew up on the battlefields of the two Chechen wars (1994–1996 and 1999–2004). One of the first to do that, Shamil Basayev, was the mastermind of the Dubrovka and Beslan hostage takings. His successor, Doku Umarov, managed to strengthen the ties with local Islamic communities and claimed the establishment of the “Caucasus Emirate,” a pan-Caucasus terrorist group fighting “jihad against the infidels” and for an Islamic emirate consisting of all the North Caucasus.
Umarov launched an even greater terror campaign and is allegedly behind for the suicide bombing at the Domodedovo Airport in January, two suicide bombings in Moscow in March 2010, and the Nevsky Express bombing in November 2009. The Caucasus Emirate is one of the most active terrorist battlefronts today and is responsible for the daily attacks on innocent civilians, police stations, and government offices throughout Russia and the Caucasus.
The North Caucasus has been on al-Qaeda’s radar screen for a decade and a half. Zawahiri visited the region in mid-1990s and was arrested (and subsequently released) by the Russians—for reasons which are still unclear. He identified the Caucasus as one of the primary fronts in the war against Russia and the West.
...
After bin Laden’s death, al-Qaeda is clearly committed to expand its theaters of operations and reaching out to affiliates, including those in Russia. This is hardly surprising, as Chechen terrorists fight in Afghanistan alongside al-Qaeda and were even jailed in Guantanamo.
It is time for the Kremlin to recognize this threat and stop the usual propaganda narrative of anti-Americanism. As for the United States, we should continue our commitment to the war on terrorism and prevent al-Qaeda affiliates to find a new safe haven and new allies in the poorly governed North Caucasus.
(for a complete report, click the link below)
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/after-bin-laden%e2%80%99s-death-al-qaeda-turns-to-the-north-caucasus/
THE "NON-INTERVENTIONISM" DOCTRINE IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRINCIPLE
Those who advocate strict non-interventionism usually intend it to mean that America should remain militarily uninvolved abroad except when there is a clear and imminent threat to U.S. territory. But this isolationist doctrine of non-interventionism is not in keeping with the founding principles of America’s early foreign policy.
The Founding Fathers, whose foreign policy some non-interventionists claim to champion, were no strangers to difficult foreign policy decisions. When faced with the choice to allow attacks on American ships of commerce by Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean Sea or to punish the perpetrators of those attacks, President Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State James Madison chose the latter.
In 1801, just thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the United States built six frigates and dispatched a naval squadron to seek out and punish the Muslim pirates who had been attacking American merchants and endangering the life and property of American citizens. Soon the U.S. Navy attacked the port of Tripoli (pictured above) and landed Marines on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, who then captured the Ottoman city of Derma. This series of battles inspired a line of the U.S. Marine Corps’ Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”).
The Tripolitan War blatantly violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, in order to carry out a U.S. foreign policy objective that was in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace. It did so without officially declaring war. Interestingly, America’s cause in this conflict was also understood by the Jefferson administration to be punishing the Barbary States’ violations against the Law of Nations.
Strict non-interventionists would apparently object to this historical deployment of the Marines on foreign soil to ensure Americans’ safety in another hemisphere; for the doctrine of non-interventionism is conspicuously dogmatic and inflexible. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the isolationist views of the 1930s and bears little resemblance to the Founders’ foreign policy approach. Even though there was disagreement among the Founders on certain policies, there was an overwhelming agreement that abroad America should vigorously maintains it independence and pursue its interests while standing for the idea of political freedom across the globe.
While a policy of non-intervention is sometimes appropriate, the doctrine of non-interventionism is an isolationist policy which limits the options available to America. It is a limitation that the Founders clearly did not adopt: in the years 1783-1860, the U.S. engaged in military action nearly sixty times at locations around the globe. Like the Tripolitan War, these military actions in the service of America’s interests and principles were both defensive and, at times, interventionist.
The true consistency of American foreign policy is to be found not in its policies, which ought to prudently change and adapt, but in its guiding principles, which should be unchanging and permanent. Those who advocate strict non-interventionism are not representing a traditionally American foreign policy approach; for it excludes the statesmanlike virtue of prudence and ignores many instances in early American history when the U.S. did intervene, even militarily, in order to defend America’s interests and advance its political principles.
—Marion Smith is a graduate fellow in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation. This post is the second in a series on the Founders’ understanding of military engagement.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/the-founders-on-intervention-american-military-action-abroad-1783-1860/
The Founding Fathers, whose foreign policy some non-interventionists claim to champion, were no strangers to difficult foreign policy decisions. When faced with the choice to allow attacks on American ships of commerce by Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean Sea or to punish the perpetrators of those attacks, President Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State James Madison chose the latter.
In 1801, just thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the United States built six frigates and dispatched a naval squadron to seek out and punish the Muslim pirates who had been attacking American merchants and endangering the life and property of American citizens. Soon the U.S. Navy attacked the port of Tripoli (pictured above) and landed Marines on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, who then captured the Ottoman city of Derma. This series of battles inspired a line of the U.S. Marine Corps’ Hymn (“to the shores of Tripoli”).
The Tripolitan War blatantly violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, in order to carry out a U.S. foreign policy objective that was in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace. It did so without officially declaring war. Interestingly, America’s cause in this conflict was also understood by the Jefferson administration to be punishing the Barbary States’ violations against the Law of Nations.
Strict non-interventionists would apparently object to this historical deployment of the Marines on foreign soil to ensure Americans’ safety in another hemisphere; for the doctrine of non-interventionism is conspicuously dogmatic and inflexible. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the isolationist views of the 1930s and bears little resemblance to the Founders’ foreign policy approach. Even though there was disagreement among the Founders on certain policies, there was an overwhelming agreement that abroad America should vigorously maintains it independence and pursue its interests while standing for the idea of political freedom across the globe.
While a policy of non-intervention is sometimes appropriate, the doctrine of non-interventionism is an isolationist policy which limits the options available to America. It is a limitation that the Founders clearly did not adopt: in the years 1783-1860, the U.S. engaged in military action nearly sixty times at locations around the globe. Like the Tripolitan War, these military actions in the service of America’s interests and principles were both defensive and, at times, interventionist.
The true consistency of American foreign policy is to be found not in its policies, which ought to prudently change and adapt, but in its guiding principles, which should be unchanging and permanent. Those who advocate strict non-interventionism are not representing a traditionally American foreign policy approach; for it excludes the statesmanlike virtue of prudence and ignores many instances in early American history when the U.S. did intervene, even militarily, in order to defend America’s interests and advance its political principles.
—Marion Smith is a graduate fellow in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation. This post is the second in a series on the Founders’ understanding of military engagement.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/the-founders-on-intervention-american-military-action-abroad-1783-1860/
OBAMA GETS IT WRONG ON EDUCATION
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Yet when it comes to education, that’s one lesson the federal government hasn’t learned. Maybe it’s time to put some history teachers on the case. They would have to look no further than President Barack Obama in writing their lesson plan.
Yesterday the President delivered a commencement speech at a high school in Memphis, Tenn., in recognition for its achievement in his Race to the Top Commencement Challenge, a competition for schools to demonstrate their commitment to preparing students for college. While applauding the students, the President also took time to pat his Administration on the back for its education policy — which amounts to another truckload of spending and further concentration of power over education in Washington:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/17/morning-bell-teaching-obama-a-lesson-on-education/
Yesterday the President delivered a commencement speech at a high school in Memphis, Tenn., in recognition for its achievement in his Race to the Top Commencement Challenge, a competition for schools to demonstrate their commitment to preparing students for college. While applauding the students, the President also took time to pat his Administration on the back for its education policy — which amounts to another truckload of spending and further concentration of power over education in Washington:
Ever since I became President, my Administration has been working hard to make sure that we build on the progress that’s taking place at schools like this. We’ve got to encourage the kind of change that’s led not by Washington, D.C., but by teachers and principals and parents; by entire communities; by ordinary people standing up and demanding a better future for their children.In reality, the President’s strategy isn’t about empowering teachers and communities. It’s about increasing the federal government’s authority over schools. The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke writes:
Despite his assertion that education change must be led “by teachers and principals and parents” – not by Washington, D.C. – the Obama Administration’s track record on education policy begs the contrary. His Administration has continued the education spending spree, taking it to new heights thanks to a $100 billion bonus provided to the Department of Education through the so-called “stimulus” in 2009.(click the link below for a complete article)
Moreover, the President is eager to consolidate more power in Washington by requiring states to comply with national standards as a part of No Child Left Behind reauthorization, driven by the belief that education reform can happen top-down from Washington. President Obama has called for the law’s reauthorization before the start of the next school year.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/17/morning-bell-teaching-obama-a-lesson-on-education/
WHY AMERICA NEEDS ISRAEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits President Barack Obama at the White House today for three hours of meetings, he will likely ask the President a very important question: Do you stand by the long-standing U.S. commitments to Israel’s future as a Jewish state?
He’s right to ask the question. In a speech yesterday on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East following the “Arab Spring” uprisings, President Obama broached the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notably, he stated that, as part of finding peace between Israel and Palestine, the two parties should return to their 1967 borders. The Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips explains that the President’s proposal is a “misreading of the past” and an “underestimation of the terrorist threat” that Israel faces:
House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), too, sharply condemned President Obama’s position, stating, “This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself.” And given Palestine’s track record, Israel has legitimate cause for concern over its security and defense. Heritage foreign policy experts explain in a recent paper, “After bin Laden: Top Five Agenda Items for Obama’s Middle East Speech“:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/morning-bell-standing-strong-with-israel/
He’s right to ask the question. In a speech yesterday on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East following the “Arab Spring” uprisings, President Obama broached the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notably, he stated that, as part of finding peace between Israel and Palestine, the two parties should return to their 1967 borders. The Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips explains that the President’s proposal is a “misreading of the past” and an “underestimation of the terrorist threat” that Israel faces:
Israel’s 2005 withdrawal to its 1967 border with Gaza led not to peace but to expanded terrorism after Hamas staged a bloody coup in 2007 and transformed Gaza into a base for launching rockets against Israeli civilians. Israel cannot afford to return to its 1967 border with the West Bank unless it has ironclad guarantees that any territory relinquished will not again be transformed into a base for future terrorist attacks. This is impossible as long as Hamas, committed to Israel’s destruction, remains a potent force.Understandably, President Obama’s statement yesterday drew a sharp response from Netanyahu, who said, “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence.” What’s more, the prime minister’s office requested a “reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.” Those affirmations reference a letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from President George W. Bush, which stated that under the circumstances, returning to the 1967 borders would not be possible “in light of new realities on the ground” — specifically, already existing major Israeli population centers in the West Bank.
House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), too, sharply condemned President Obama’s position, stating, “This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself.” And given Palestine’s track record, Israel has legitimate cause for concern over its security and defense. Heritage foreign policy experts explain in a recent paper, “After bin Laden: Top Five Agenda Items for Obama’s Middle East Speech“:
Palestinians are hardly the best partner for peace—they have partnered with Hamas, a terrorist group that denies the right of the Israeli nation to exist and mourns the demise of Osama bin Laden.(Click the link below for a complete report)
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/morning-bell-standing-strong-with-israel/
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is.Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
(click the link below for more information)
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is.Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
(click the link below for more information)
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
A state law signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009 calls upon all K-12 government schools to teach children as 5 years old to honor homosexual activist and sexual predator* Harvey Milk.
It's up to teachers and schools to decide every May whether kids will perform pro-Milk "exercises" (the week before or after May 22, Milk's birthday). There is NO parental permission or notification.
Q: What is Harvey Milk Day and why should I be concerned?
Despite the outcry of parents and concerned Californians, in 2009 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 572, which establishes every May 22 as "Harvey Milk Day" in K-12 public schools in California. But for all practical purposes, "Harvey Milk" activities could occur in classrooms and on campuses between May 16 and 27.
Teachers, schools and school districts that participate will teach children to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist Harvey Milk, of whom the bill states: "...perhaps more than any other modern figure, Harvey Milk's life and political career embody the rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement in California, across the nation, and throughout the world."
Under SB 572, children will perform "suitable commemorative exercises," remembering the "life," "accomplishments," and "contributions" of Harvey Milk -- in other words, the entire homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda for which Milk advocated.
There is no definition or limit to these "exercises," which, at participating schools, could include gay-pride parades, cross-dressing contests and mock gay weddings, or anything else Milk supported.
Every teacher or school or school district that opts to celebrate Milk Day is endorsing
Milk’s values to impressionable children as young as kindergarten!
Learn more about SB 572 and why Harvey Milk is a horrible role model »
See how homosexual activists are promoting Harvey Milk Day to educators »
Q: When is Milk Day and is parental permission required?
May 22, Harvey Milk's birthday, falls on a Sunday this year, but the danger period is May 16 to 27. It's up to teachers, principals, and school districts whether to promote Harvey Milk's homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda to impressionable children. And Harvey Milk Day exercises and activities will occur behind parents' backs because the law does not require teachers or school officials to seek your permission or even notify you. This is why parents have to quiz teachers and principals to see whether Harvey Milk will be honored in classrooms, in a school assembly, through a school-wide announcement, etc.
Q: What were Harvey Milk's values?**
1. Harvey Milk supported the entire homosexual, bisexual, and cross-dressing agenda
2. Milk refused to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by this behavior
3. Milk was a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems
4. Milk advocated having multiple sexual relationships at the same time
5. Milk promoted lying to get ahead
Whether taught directly or indirectly, these values are wrong to teach to children as acceptable!
Q: What were Harvey Milk's values?**
1. Harvey Milk supported the entire homosexual, bisexual, and cross-dressing agenda
2. Milk refused to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by this behavior
3. Milk was a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems
4. Milk advocated having multiple sexual relationships at the same time
5. Milk promoted lying to get ahead
Whether taught directly or indirectly, these values are wrong to teach to children as acceptable!
http://savecalifornia.com/harvey-milk-day.html
It's up to teachers and schools to decide every May whether kids will perform pro-Milk "exercises" (the week before or after May 22, Milk's birthday). There is NO parental permission or notification.
Q: What is Harvey Milk Day and why should I be concerned?
Despite the outcry of parents and concerned Californians, in 2009 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 572, which establishes every May 22 as "Harvey Milk Day" in K-12 public schools in California. But for all practical purposes, "Harvey Milk" activities could occur in classrooms and on campuses between May 16 and 27.
Teachers, schools and school districts that participate will teach children to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist Harvey Milk, of whom the bill states: "...perhaps more than any other modern figure, Harvey Milk's life and political career embody the rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement in California, across the nation, and throughout the world."
Under SB 572, children will perform "suitable commemorative exercises," remembering the "life," "accomplishments," and "contributions" of Harvey Milk -- in other words, the entire homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda for which Milk advocated.
There is no definition or limit to these "exercises," which, at participating schools, could include gay-pride parades, cross-dressing contests and mock gay weddings, or anything else Milk supported.
Every teacher or school or school district that opts to celebrate Milk Day is endorsing
Milk’s values to impressionable children as young as kindergarten!
Learn more about SB 572 and why Harvey Milk is a horrible role model »
See how homosexual activists are promoting Harvey Milk Day to educators »
Q: When is Milk Day and is parental permission required?
May 22, Harvey Milk's birthday, falls on a Sunday this year, but the danger period is May 16 to 27. It's up to teachers, principals, and school districts whether to promote Harvey Milk's homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda to impressionable children. And Harvey Milk Day exercises and activities will occur behind parents' backs because the law does not require teachers or school officials to seek your permission or even notify you. This is why parents have to quiz teachers and principals to see whether Harvey Milk will be honored in classrooms, in a school assembly, through a school-wide announcement, etc.
Q: What were Harvey Milk's values?**
1. Harvey Milk supported the entire homosexual, bisexual, and cross-dressing agenda
2. Milk refused to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by this behavior
3. Milk was a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems
4. Milk advocated having multiple sexual relationships at the same time
5. Milk promoted lying to get ahead
Whether taught directly or indirectly, these values are wrong to teach to children as acceptable!
Q: What were Harvey Milk's values?**
1. Harvey Milk supported the entire homosexual, bisexual, and cross-dressing agenda
2. Milk refused to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by this behavior
3. Milk was a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems
4. Milk advocated having multiple sexual relationships at the same time
5. Milk promoted lying to get ahead
Whether taught directly or indirectly, these values are wrong to teach to children as acceptable!
http://savecalifornia.com/harvey-milk-day.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)