Thursday, January 29, 2009
Through the eyes of a child:
The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there wasnothing but God, darkness, and some gas.
The Bible says,'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did.
Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked,but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't beeninvented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were
driven from the Garden of Eden.
Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham.
Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast.
Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice,bowels, and no cable.
God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments.
These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff.
Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise,but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets.
One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees and the Democrats.
Jesus also had twelve opossums.
The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount.
But the Democrats and all those guys put Jesus on trial beforePontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again.
He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.
Monday, January 26, 2009
His Royal Highness Prince Turki al-Faisal is a leading Saudi powerbroker.
Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal threatens the U.S. government.
Born in 1945 in Mecca to the future King Faisal, his official biography informs us Turki studied at the Ta'if Model Elementary and Intermediate School, the Lawrenceville School, and Georgetown University. His career began in 1973 as an advisor in the Royal Court. He served as director general of the kingdom's main foreign intelligence service for nearly a quarter-century, from 1977 to 2001, leaving that office just before 9/11.
Between 2002 and 2007, he represented his government as ambassador to London and Washington. In retirement, he is chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh and co-chair of the C100 Group, an affiliate of the World Economic Forum.
These credentials help gauge the import of the remarkable op-ed Turki published on Jan. 23 in London's Financial Times, "Saudi Arabia's patience is running out."
He begins it by recalling his own efforts over the decades to promote Arab-Israeli peace and especially the Abdullah Plan of 2002.
"But after Israel launched its bloody attack on Gaza," he writes, "these pleas for optimism and co-operation now seem a distant memory."
Then comes a threat: "Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk."
He goes on to whack George W. Bush in a way not exactly usual for a former Saudi ambassador: "Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region, but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents." Then comes the threat again, restated more directly:
"If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact - especially its 'special relationship' with Saudi Arabia - it will have to revise drastically its policies vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine."
Turki goes on to instruct in detail the new administration what to do:
condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect;
condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians;
declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not;
call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace;
and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity. Mr Obama should strongly promote the Abdullah peace initiative.
Finally Turki notes that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on "Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel [that] would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed."
He soothingly notes that, "So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls," but then reiterates his threat a third time: "every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain. Eventually, the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel."
Comments: What to make of this extraordinary threat? Not much.
(1) As a Financial Times article on Turki's op-ed notes, "The prince's article recalls the letters that King Abdullah, as crown prince, sent to George W. Bush in 2001, warning that the kingdom would review relations with the US unless the administration adopted a forceful push for Middle East peace. The letters rang alarm bells in Washington but were soon overshadowed by the September 11 attacks, which involved a group of Saudis. It was only after Riyadh launched its own campaign against terrorism two years later and started addressing the root causes of radicalism that ties with the US improved again." In other words, we've experienced such a threat before, to little effect.
(2) For all his years at the apex of the Saudi establishment, Turki left his final position ignominiously in 2006. Here is a contemporary account of his exit, from the Washington Post:
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, flew out of Washington yesterday after informing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his staff that he would be leaving the post after only 15 months on the job, according to U.S. officials and foreign envoys. Turki, a long-serving former intelligence chief, told his staff yesterday afternoon that he wanted to spend more time with his family, according to Arab diplomats. Colleagues said they were shocked at the decision. The exit [occurred] without the fanfare, parties and tributes that normally accompany a leading envoy's departure, much less a public statement.
(3) Turki has a history of Islamist radicalism and hot-headedness vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict. In a speech earlier this month at a forum on relations between the Persian Gulf region and the United States, he addressed Obama:
The Bush administration has left you [with] a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza.
Enough is enough, today we are all Palestinians and we seek martyrdom for God and for Palestine, following those who died in Gaza.
"Seek martyrdom"? Sounds like the revolutionary Iranian regime, not the staid Saudi monarchy.
(4) Turki's threats could conceivably sway the Obama administration, but the new president's comments about the recent Gaza hostilities suggest he is going in a decidedly different direction, having laid down three markers that Hamas must fulfill before it can be accepted as a diplomatic partner ("recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements"). In the words of a Washington Post analysis, thus far, "Obama appears to have hewed closely to the line held by the Bush administration."
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama's first foreign policy test is on his desk. Iran loaded a ship for delivery of weapons to Hamas at a time when they thought everyone would be busy - Israel leaving the Strip; the US changing administrations.
Intelligence sources learned of the shipment - we searched for, found, and have now boarded the ship - and promptly find ourselves in a quagmire: Secret compartments with missiles inside - undeclared on the manifest.
We cannot get to the compartments without docking at a bigger port. Iran will not sit quietly. We just placed a news blackout on the incident.
Debka reported on January 20, 2009, that that an "arms-smuggling vessel started its voyage as the Iran-Hedayat and changed its name in mid sea to Famagustus registered to Panama.
The captain was ordered by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to unload its cargo at a smugglers cove on the southeastern coast of Sinai opposite the Gulf of Suez, to be picked up by armed Bedouin gangs and moved to El Arish in northern Sinai.
From there the contraband rockets were to be slipped gradually into the Gaza Strip.
"The cargo consists of 50 Fajr rockets whose range is 50-75 km, scores of heavy Grad rockets, new, improved launchers whose angle of fire can be precisely adjusted, tons of high-quality explosives, submachine guns, rifles and pistols and armor-piercing missiles and shells (of types used successfully by Hizballah against Israeli tanks in 2006).
"The shipment, the largest Tehran has ever consigned to the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza, includes also a large number of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines, equipment for assembling roadside bombs and advanced communications and night vision gear."
The latest update indicates a different name for the ship: Cypriot-flagged Iranian freighter Nochegorsk. And now the plot thickens:
"But the US and Egyptian governments are in a fix. To break the Iranian ship's holds open and expose the rockets destined for Hamas, the facilities of a sizeable port are needed. It would have to be Egyptian because the other coastal nations - Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia - are hostile or controlled by pirates.
Both the US and Egypt are hesitant about precipitating a full-blown armed confrontation with Iran. The timing is wrong for the new Barack Obama administration, which is set on smoothing relations with Tehran through diplomatic engagement. Cairo has just launched a campaign to limit Tehran's aggressive drive in the Middle East but does not want a premature clash.
"DEBKAfile's Iranian sources disclose that the ship's captain had orders not to resist an American boarding team but impede a close look at its freight. The Navy Coast Guard searchers first found a large amount of ordnance and explosives in the ship's hold, which the Iranian captain claimed were necessary for securing Iranian freighters heading from the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.
But then, the US searchers using metal detectors perceived welded steel compartments packed with more hardware concealed at the bottom of the hull.
"The option of towing it to a Persian Gulf port for an intensive search was rejected because the Gulf emirates hosting US bases were almost certain to shy away from involvement in the affair. Moreover, Tehran would be close enough to mount a naval commando operation to scuttle the ship before it was searched."
W caught the Iranians red-handed. Will Obama let them off the hook? Will he place the ship in UN hands? The world is watching to see how he handles it.
Israeli News is joining the discussion.
Naval officers from the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport dockship that serves as the headquarters for the taskforce, last week boarded a cargo vessel registered in Limassol and flying a Cypriot flag.
Upon boarding the ship in the Red Sea, the naval officers discovered numerous crates with the inscription “hazardous materials.” The naval officers asked Egyptian authorities to order the Iranian ship to proceed to an Egyptian port for a detailed search before allowing it to travel through the Suez Canal.
According to unconfirmed reports, the navy found armaments. However, the U.S. has not confirmed the media reports.
Ha'Aretz offers a benign assessment: The Cypriot-flagged commercial vessel was tracked by a U.S. Navy ship in the Red Sea over the weekend, one official said. It was boarded and searched with the consent of the vessel's crew on Monday and Tuesday, said another.
World Net proffers the "UN has a rule but no enforcement mechanism" story: The ship is now docked at an Egyptian port on the Red Sea after being escorted by the U.S. Navy out of the Suez Canal, which leads to the Mediterranean, the defense officials said. Due to complicated maritime laws, the U.S. and Egypt may let the ship sail to the Mediterranean, where either Israeli or Egyptian naval units would need to decide whether to entirely halt the vessel.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Conflict Number of Deaths
Israel's War Against Hamas �� � �1,000�
Rwanda Genocide ��300,000
Ethiopian Genocide ��400,000
Guatemalan Civil War ��200,000
Second Congo War 4,000,000
Democide in Uganda �� 400,000
During Israel's fight for survival against Hamas, there were anti-Israel demonstrations across the world, anti-Semitic incidents, calls for boycotts of Israeli products and academics, and even demands for governments to sever ties with Israel. �(At a rally on January 6th in Los Angeles, pro-Hamas and Hezbollah supporters taunted Israel supporters with, "Long live Hitler," "Jews to the ovens," "Jews should be fossil fuel," "F--- you, Jews" and similar epithets). �
QUESTION: �Where were the street demonstrations, boycotts, demands to sever ties, acts of vandalism to protest the massacres in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Congo and Uganda? �
ANSWER: � � �THERE WERE NONE!
HEIGHT OF IRONY: �In Darfur, where 300,000 Black Muslims have been murdered by Arab Muslims (Janjaweed) since 2003, the Sudanese people recently demonstrated against - ISRAEL!
London - More Anti-Semitic Attacks in Golders Green
Published on: January 22nd, 2009 at 08:34 AM
Words of hate: vandals daubed racist graffiti on a bus shelter in Temple Fortune
London - The Jewish community in Golders Green has been the target of further anti-Semitic attacks, in the form of more offensive graffiti.
Graffiti reading "Kill the filthy Jews" was daubed on walls and pavements near Golders Green tube station and vandals wrote "Jihad 4 Israel" on top of Holocaust Memorial Day adverts.
Gabriella Lauffer, 22, from Golders Green, said: "The graffiti just comes down to anti-Semitism. Gaza is an excuse for anti-Semites to attack Jews."
Joseph Haziza, 27, manager of Menachem Kosher butchers which is next to Sinclair Grove on Golders Green road, said: "In this area of Golders Green the graffiti hasn't been as bad. Further up the Golders Green Road they have been affected, with Muslims coming into Jewish shops and saying: 'I'm going to kill you'.
And a spokesman for the Community Security Trust, which works to safeguard Jewish communities in the UK, said: "CST has been notified of well over 150 anti-Semitic incidents throughout Britain, by far the worst wave of anti-Semitism in recent decades.
Link to article: �http://www.vosizneias.com/26119
Saudi School Textbooks Incite to Hatred and Violence
Dr. Sami Alrabaa
Passages from a Kuwaiti school textbook ("Jurisprudence, page 38) for the second grade:
Who is, or who is not, punished in a Muslim society:
* A Muslim who kills an apostate or someone who commits adultery against an infidel is not punished.
* If a Muslim kills an infidel or a slave, he is not punished.
* If a Muslim man, father, or grandfather kills someone from his offspring, he is not punished.
Excerpts from textbooks in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia:
A fourth grade textbook on Monotheism and Religion instructs students:
"Any other religion other than Islam is invalid (false)." (P. 29 )
"Hate (yakrah) the polytheists and the infidels" as a requirement of "true faith." (P. 86)
5th Grade Book: Monotheism�and Religion:
*"Every religion other than Islam is invalid." (P. 33)
*"It is not permitted to be a loyal to non-Muslims, and to those who oppose God and His Prophet."� (P. 14)
*"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives." (P. 71)
*"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion.
Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion." (P. 73)
*"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power." (P. 75)
*"Jews are the people of the Sabbath, whose young people God turned into apes, and whose old people God turned into swine to punish them."
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus." (P. 83)
*"The clash between our [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills. In this hadith, Muhammad gives us an example of the battle between the Muslims and the Jews." (P. 113)
*"Narrated by Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet said, the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. [It will not come] until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. [It will not come] until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'." (P. 114)
*"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him." (P. 117)
"A woman who shows in public any part of her body except that of her eyes will be punished by hellfire by almighty Allah." (P. 194)
"The infidels have established Christian hospitals and clinics and send medics all over the world. As one of the Christianizers said, 'Where you find people, you find pain. And where there's pain, there's a need for a doctor. And where there's a need for a doctor, there's an appropriate opportunity for missionary activity [Christianization].'" (P. 163)
"The infidels have founded many schools and universities in the Muslim world at various educational levels. These include: the American Universities of Beirut and Cairo, the Jesuit University, Robert College in Istanbul, Gordon [Memorial] College in Khartoum, and others too numerous to mention. (P. 186)
Teach that after their death, non-Muslims will be sent to hell. (P. 30)
Quiz: Is it permissible to love the Jews and Christians? Of course no. Explain why. (P. 15)
*Command Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews, polytheists and other "unbelievers," including non-devout Muslims." (P. 14)
*Teach that the Crusades never ended, and identify the American Universities in Beirut and in Cairo, other Western and Christian social service providers, media outlets, centers for academic studies of Orientalism, and campaigns for women's rights as part of the modern phase of the Crusades. (P. 15)
*Teach that "the Jews and the Christians are enemies of the [Muslim] believers"�(P. 16) and that "the clash between the two realms "continues until the Day of Resurrection." (P. 18)
*Instruct students not to "greet," "befriend," "imitate," "show loyalty to," "be courteous to", or "respect" non-believers. (P. 24)
*Define jihad to include "wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them," (P. 25) and assert that the spread of Islam through jihad is a "religious obligation." (P. 26) [the word qital, translated here as "battle," is derived from the verb qatala, "to kill," and is virtually never used metaphorically.]
*Instruct that "the struggle between Muslims and Jews" will continue "until the hour [of judgment]" and that "Muslims will triumph because they are right" and "he who is right is always victorious." (P. 27)
*Cite a selective teaching of violence against Jews, while in the same lesson, ignoring the passages of the Quran and hadeeths [narratives of the life of the Prophet, Peace be upon Him, that counsel tolerance. (P. 28)
*Teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact and relate modern events to it. (P. 29)
*Discuss Jews in violent terms, blaming them for virtually all the "subversion" and wars of the modern world. (P. 30)
*"Give examples of false religions, like Judaism, Christianity, paganism, etc." (P. 66)
*"Explain that when someone dies outside of Islam, hellfire is his fate." (P. 67)
By the way, over 20 Saudi schools, each chaired by the local ambassador from Saudi Arabia, are located throughout the world, in Bonn, Berlin, Washington, Algiers, Ankara, Beijing, Djibouti, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jakarta, Karachi, Kuala Lumpur, London, Madrid, Moscow, Paris, Rabat, Rome, and Tunis.
In fact, you can find some of the material above in many school textbooks in all the Arab Gulf countries, Egypt, Kuwait, The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan.�
Jews go to Palestine.
Now 66 years later the signs in Europe read:
Jews get out of Palestine.
Spare the Pieties on Gaza
by Jack Engelhard
Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem?
Frankly, given a choice, I prefer the skinheads and other brutes who
express their anti-Semitism openly. In such places, we know the enemy.
But please spare me the pieties and the righteous indignation of those
"good people" protesting throughout Europe against Israel 's defensive
operation in Gaza . True, thousands have taken up banners in support
of Israel . At the same time, however, the streets of Europe (and even
some in America ) are in an uproar. These are the "humanitarians" -
the good, the noble, the refined, who chant "peace."
Now you're up and about? Now you speak? Where were you when,
throughout the years, thousands of jihadist bombs fell on Israel ? The
streets of Europe were empty. There were no pictures in the newspapers
of grieving Jewish mothers and fathers. You called it "peace" as long
as the Arabs were doing the killing and the Jews were doing the dying.
All was well with the world.
Suddenly, as Israel answered back, you found your Cause; and how
self-righteous you are in your Cause.
You are the best and the brightest of Europe . You are educated. You
attended the finest schools. You care for the birds, the bees, the
bears, the trees. You favor free speech and freedom of religion.
Strange it is that the one and only place in the Middle East that
shares your world-view is Israel , and it is Israel that you slander.
Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem? At the first hint of
Jewish self-defense, how quickly you show your true colors.
I've seen the photos of your candlelight vigils along the streets and
boulevards of Europe , all of it; all these tears in the service of
those terrorists whom you call your brothers. Indeed you are related
to Hamas (and Fatah) as once before, a mere generation ago, you were
related to Hitler's stormtroopers. Your angelic faces are touching -
and disgusting. Your hypocrisy is transparent and nauseating.
You speak of disproportion. You want proportion?
Give Israel a population of 300 million residing in 22 countries, similar to the Arab Muslims who surround and ambush Israel - instead of five and a half million Jews in one single country.
There's plenty of "proportion" coming from your BBC, which delights in presenting one side of the story and picks up where Der Sturmer left off. Now, with this type of "news", we know how Europe was conditioned for a Holocaust.
Already we see Nights of Broken Glass. Thank you, Europe, for
reminding us why America was discovered just in time (and why Israel
was redeemed many generations too late). You dare judge Israel ? In
your deportations, your expulsions, your forced conversions, your
inquisitions, your pogroms, you have no moral authority over Israel or
even within your own borders. You gave all that up from 1492 to 1942.
To those on the Left who sought peace, well, dear peace-lovers, peace
brought this on. "Land for Peace" made this happen, as Land for Peace
became Land for Jihad. "Painful Concessions" caused this war.
"Goodwill Gestures" backfired. Want more "peace"? Give up the Golan
Heights . Give up the entire West Bank . Give up Jerusalem . Imagine
the "peace." As for those "innocent civilians" in Gaza , they were
given a choice and they chose Hamas. They chose this pestilence.
As for those "refugee camps" - why are they "refugee camps" when
Israel handed over all that territory for a nation to be built in
peace and security alongside Israel ? Why are all Palestinians
automatically refugees even after they've been given a home? The only
true refugees are the thousands of Israelis who were driven from Gaza
and still live in trailer parks. No tears for them in this world that
still dreams of Auschwitz .
On this day, in response to a column I wrote about Theresienstadt,
someone responded that I was incorrect; that Theresienstadt was not a
prelude to Auschwitz , but rather "a vacation resort." I wrote back
wishing this person a lifetime in such vacation resorts. I wish the
same lifetime vacation resorts to all those parading throughout the
streets of Europe with banners crying, "Death to Israel ."
God bless the IDF! Go Israel !
Jack Engelhard is the author of "The Bathsheba Deadline" and "Indecent
Proposal", as well as the award-winning memoir of his experiences as a
Jewish refugee from Europe, "Escape From Mount Moriah ".
Thursday, January 22, 2009
OUTSPOKEN Islamic cleric Abu Hamza has branded Australians as boozers whoare hooked on gambling and prostitution. In another sermon broadcast over the internet, the Melbourne cleric urgedfollowers to spread the word of Islam to save Australians, the Herald reports
JANUARY 22, 2009
Silencing Islam's Critics
A Dutch court imports Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe.
The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
ALAN NOTE: Obama's first phone call was to Palestinian "President Abbas"
Palestinians - Brainchild of the KGB
As Ion Mihai Pacepa, onetime director of the Romanian espionage service (DIE), later explained, the PLO was conceived at a time when the KGB was creating “liberation front” organizations throughout the Third world.
Others included the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro. But the PLO was the KGB’s most enduring achievement.
In 1964, the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Soviet blueprint for a Palestinian National Charter—a document drafted in Moscow—and made Ahmad Shukairy, the KGB’s agent of influence, the first PLO chairman.
The Romanian intelligence service was given responsibility for providing the PLO with logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the KGB and the East German Stasi, everything, according to Ion Pacepa, “came from Bucharest. Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in Romania free of charge, as a ‘comradely help.’
During those years, two Romanian cargo planes filled with goodies for the PLO landed in Beirut every week.”
The PLO came on the scene at a critical moment in Middle East history.
At the Khartoum conference held shortly after the Six-Day war, the defeated and humiliated Arab states confronted the “new reality” of an Israel that seemed unbeatable in conventional warfare. The participants of the conference decided, among other things, to continue the war against Israel as what today would be called a “low intensity conflict.”
The PLO’s Fatah forces were perfect to carry out this mission.
The Soviets not only armed and trained Palestinian terrorists but also used them to arm and train other professional terrorists by the thousands. The International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (CPSU), the Soviet Security Police (KGB), and Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) all played major roles in this effort.
From the late 1960s onwards, moreover, the PLO maintained contact with other terror groups—some of them neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing groups—offering them support and supplies, training and funding.
The Soviets also built Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University to serve as a base of indoctrination and training of potential “freedom fighters” from the Third world. (Many senior current islamic regime members in Iran also studied there).
More specialized training in terrorism was provided at locations in Baku, Odessa, Simferopol, and Tashkent. Mahmoud Abbas, later to succeed Yassir Arafat as head of the PLO, was a graduate of Patrice Lumumba U, where he received his Ph.D. in 1982 after completing a thesis partly based on Holocaust denial.
By George Friedman
Editor’s Note: This is the sixth in a series of monographs by Stratfor founder George Friedman on geopolitics currently critical in world affairs. Click here for a printable PDF of the monograph in its entirety.
Dealing with the geopolitics of a nation without a clearly defined geography is difficult. The geography within which Palestinians currently live is not the area they claim as their own, nor are their current boundaries recognized as legitimate by others.
The Palestinians do not have a state that fully controls the territory in which they live, nor can their existing governing entity, the Palestinian National Authority, be regarded as speaking for all Palestinians. A range of things that a state must have in order to be a state, from an economy to a military force, either do not exist or exist in forms that are not fully mature. It is therefore impossible to speak of the geopolitics of “Palestine” as if it were a nation-state.
We will begin instead by speaking of the geopolitics of the Palestinians — and in a departure from other installments in this series, we do not begin with geography, but end there.
RELATED LINK The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern
RELATED SPECIAL TOPIC PAGES Israeli-Palestinian Geopolitics and the Peace Process Fatah, Hamas and the Struggle for the PNA Geopolitical Monographs by George Friedman
In raising the notion of a Palestinian geopolitics, we already enter an area of controversy, because there are those -— and this includes not only Israelis but Arabs as well -— who would argue that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation, that there is no distinct national identity that can be called Palestinian.
But while that might have been true 100 years ago or even 50, it is certainly no longer true.
If there was no Palestinian nation in the past, there certainly is one now, and -— like many nations —- it was born in battle. A nation has more than an identity. It has a place, a location. And that location determines its behavior.
To understand Hamas’ actions in Gaza, or Israel’s for that matter, it is necessary to consider first the origins and then the geopolitics of the Palestinians. This is a story that we have told before, but it is key to understanding the geopolitics of the region.
The Origins of Palestinian Geopolitics
The story begins with the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the Middle East from 1517 to 1918, when World War I ended. The Ottomans divided the Middle East into provinces, one of which was Syria.
Under the Ottomans, the Syria province encompassed what is today Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.
Constantinople (Istanbul), the Ottoman seat, sided with the Germans in World War I. As a result, after the war the victorious British and French dismantled the Ottoman Empire, and the province of Syria came under British and French rule.
Under a secret wartime French-British deal, known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, the province was divided on a line running from Mount Hermon due west to the sea.
The area to the north was placed under French control; the area to the south was placed under British control.
(click map to enlarge)
The French region was further subdivided. The French had been allied with the Maronite Christians during a civil war that raged in the region in the 1860s. Paris owed them a debt, so it turned the predominantly Maronite region of Syria into a separate state, naming it Lebanon after the dominant topographical characteristic of the region, Mount Lebanon.
As a state, Lebanon had no prior reality, nor even a unified ethno-sectarian identity; its main unifying feature was that demographically, it was dominated by French allies.
The British region also was divided. The Hashemites, who ruled the western Hejaz region of the Arabian Peninsula, had supported the British, rising up against the Ottomans. In return, the British had promised to make them rulers of Arabia after the war.
But in addition to the Hashemites, London was also allied with the French and with other tribes against the Ottomans, and thus could not make the Hashemites the unquestioned rulers of all of Arabia (the Peninsula as well as the Levant).
Furthermore, the Sauds in 1900 had launched the reconquest of Arabia from Kuwait, and had gained control over the eastern and central parts of the peninsula. By the mid-1920s, the Hashemites lost control over the peninsula to the Sauds, paving the way for the eventual creation of Saudi Arabia.
(click map to enlarge)
But by then the British had moved the Hashemites to an area in the northern part of the peninsula, on the eastern bank of the Jordan River. Centered around the town of Amman, they named this protectorate carved from Syria “Trans-Jordan,” as in “the other side of the Jordan River,” since it lacked any other obvious identity.
After the British withdrew in 1948, Trans-Jordan became contemporary Jordan. The Hashemites also had been given another kingdom, Iraq, in 1921, which they lost to a coup by Nasserist military officers in 1958.
West of the Jordan River and south of Mount Hermon was a region that had been an administrative district of Syria under the Ottomans. It had been called “Philistia” for the most part, undoubtedly after the Philistines whose Goliath had fought David thousands of years before.
Names here have history. The term Filistine eventually came to be known as Palestine, a name derived from ancient Greek — and that is what the British named the region, whose capital was Jerusalem.
(click map to enlarge)
Significantly, while the people of this area were referred to as Palestinians, a demand for a Palestinian state was virtually nonexistent in 1918. T
he European concept of national identity at this time was still very new to the Arab region of the Ottoman Empire. There were clear distinctions in the region, however. Arabs were not Turks. Muslims were not Christians, nor were they Jews.
Within the Arab world there were religious, tribal and regional conflicts.
For example, there were tensions between the Hashemites from the Arabian Peninsula and the Arabs settled in Trans-Jordan, but these were not defined as tensions between the country of Jordan and the country of Palestine. They were very old and very real, but were not thought of in national terms.
European Jews had been moving into this region under Ottoman rule since the 1880s, joining relatively small Jewish communities that had existed there (and in most other Arab regions) for centuries.
The movement was part of the Zionist movement, which —- motivated by European definitions of nationalism —- sought to create a Jewish state in the region. The Jews came in small numbers, settling on land purchased for them by funds raised by Jews in Europe.
Usually, this land was bought from absentee landlords in Cairo and elsewhere who had gained ownership of the land under the Ottomans.
The landlords sold the land out from under the feet of Arab tenants, dispossessing them. From the Jewish point of view, this was a legitimate acquisition of land. From the tenants’ point of view, this was a direct assault on their livelihood and eviction from land their families had farmed for generations.
And so it began first as real estate transactions, winding up as partition, dispossession and conflict after World War II and the massive influx of Jews after the Holocaust.
(click map to enlarge)
As other Arab regions became nation-states in the European sense of the word, their views of the region developed. Those who adopted the Syrian identity, for example, saw Palestine as an integral part of Syria, much as they saw Lebanon and Jordan.
They saw the Sykes-Picot agreement as a violation of Syrian territorial integrity, and opposed the existence of an independent Jewish state for the same reason they opposed Lebanese or Jordanian independence.
Elements of Pan-Arab nationalism and Islamic identity informed this Syrian view, but they were not the key factors behind it. Rather, the key factor was the view that Palestine was a province of the sovereign entity known as Syria, and those we call Palestinians today were simply Syrians.
The Syrians have always been uncomfortable with the concept of Palestinian statehood —- though not with the destruction of Israel —- and actually invaded Lebanon in the 1970s to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Fatah.
The Jordanian view of the Palestinians was even more uncomfortable.
The Hashemites were very different from the region’s original inhabitants. After the partition of the British-administered Palestine in 1948, Jordan took control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But there were deep tensions with the Palestinians, and the Hashemites saw Israel as a guarantor of Jordanian security against the Palestinians.
They never intended an independent Palestinian state (they could have granted it independence between 1948 and 1967), and in September 1970, they fought a bloody war against the Palestinians, forcing the PLO out of Jordan and into Lebanon.
The Jordanians remain very fearful that the last vestige of the Hashemite monarchy could collapse under the weight of Palestinians in the kingdom and in the West Bank, paving the way for a Palestinian takeover of Jordan.
(click map to enlarge)
The Egyptians also have been uncomfortable with the Palestinians.
Under the monarchy prior to the rise of Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1952, Egypt was hostile to Israel’s creation. But when the Egyptian army drove into what is now called Gaza in 1948, Cairo saw Gaza as an extension of the Sinai Peninsula —- as it saw the Negev Desert. It viewed the region as an extension of Egypt, not as a distinct state.
Nasser’s position was even more radical. He had a vision of a single, united Arab republic, both secular and socialist, and thought of Palestine not as an independent state but as part of this United Arab Republic (which actually was founded as a federation of Egypt and Syria from 1958 to 1961).
Yasser Arafat was in part a creation of Nasser’s secular socialist championing of Arab nationalism. The liberation of Palestine from Israel was central to Arab nationalism, though this did not necessarily imply an independent Palestinian republic.
Arafat’s role in defining the Palestinians in the mind of Arab countries also must be understood.
Nasser was hostile to the conservative monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. He intended to overthrow them, knowing that incorporating them was essential to a united Arab regime. These regimes in return saw Arafat, the PLO and the Palestinian movement generally as a direct threat.
(click map to enlarge)
It is critical to understand that Palestinian nationalism did not simply emerge over and against Israel. That is only one dimension.
Palestinian nationalism represented a challenge to the Arab world as well: to Syrian nationalism, to Jordanian nationalism, to Nasser’s vision of a United Arab Republic, to Saudi Arabia’s sense of security. If Arafat was the father of Palestinian nationalism, then his enemies were not only the Israelis, but also the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Saudis and —- in the end -— the Egyptians as well.
The Palestinian Challenge Beyond IsraelPalestinian nationalism’s first enemy is Israel, but if Israel ceased to exist, the question of an independent Palestinian state would not be settled.
All of the countries bordering such a state would have serious claims on its lands, not to mention a profound distrust of Palestinian intentions.
The end of Israel thus would not guarantee a Palestinian state.
One of the remarkable things about Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza was that no Arab state moved quickly to take aggressive steps on the Gazans’ behalf.
Apart from ritual condemnation, weeks into the offensive no Arab state had done anything significant. This was not accidental: The Arab states do not view the creation of a Palestinian state as being in their interests.
They do view the destruction of Israel as being in their interests, but since they do not expect that to come about anytime soon, it is in their interest to reach some sort of understanding with the Israelis while keeping the Palestinians cont ained.
The emergence of a Palestinian state in the context of an Israeli state also is not something the Arab regimes see as in their interest -— and this is not a new phenomenon. They have never simply acknowledged Palestinian rights beyond the destruction of Israel.
In theory, they have backed the Palestinian cause, but in practice they have ranged from indifferent to hostile toward it. Indeed, the major power that is now attempting to act on behalf of the Palestinians is Iran —- a non-Arab state whose involvement is regarded by the Arab regimes as one more reason to distrust the Palestinians.
Therefore, when we say that Palestinian nationalism was born in battle, we do not mean simply that it was born in the conflict with Israel: Palestinian nationalism also was formed in conflict with the Arab world, which has both sustained the Palestinians and abandoned them.
Even when the Arab states have gone to war with Israel, as in 1973, they have fought for their own national interests —- and for the destruction of Israel —- but not for the creation of a Palestinian state.
And when the Palestinians were in battle against the Israelis, the Arab regimes’ responses ranged from indifferent to hostile.
The Palestinians are trapped in regional geopolitics. They also are trapped in their own particular geography.
First, and most obviously, their territory is divided into two widely separated states: the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Second, these two places are very different from each other.
Gaza is a nightmare into which Palestinians fleeing Israel were forced by the Egyptians. It is a social and economic trap. The West Bank is less unbearable, but regardless of what happens to Jewish settlements, it is trapped between two enemies, Israel and Jordan. Economically, it can exist only in dependency on its more dynamic neighboring economy, which means Israel.
(click map to enlarge)
Gaza has the military advantage of being dense and urbanized. It can be defended. But it is an economic catastrophe, and given its demographics, the only way out of its condition is to export workers to Israel.
To a lesser extent, the same is true for the West Bank. And the Palestinians have been exporting workers for generations. They have immigrated to countries in the region and around the world.
Any peace agreement with Israel would increase the exportation of labor locally, with Palestinian labor moving into the Israeli market.
Therefore, the paradox is that while the current situation allows a degree of autonomy amid social, economic and military catastrophe, a settlement would dramatically undermine Palestinian autonomy by creating Palestinian dependence on Israel.
The only solution for the Palestinians to this conundrum is the destruction of Israel. But they lack the ability to destroy Israel. The destruction of Israel represents a far-fetched scenario, but were it to happen, it would necessitate that other nations hostile to Israel -— both bordering the Jewish state and elsewhere in the region —- play a major role.
And if they did play this role, there is nothing in their history, ideology or position that indicates they would find the creation of a Palestinian state in their interests. Each would have very different ideas of what to do in the event of Israel’s destruction.
Therefore, the Palestinians are trapped four ways. First, they are trapped by the Israelis. Second, they are trapped by the Arab regimes. Third, they are trapped by geography, which makes any settlement a preface to dependency. Finally, they are trapped in the reality in which they exist, which rotates from the minimally bearable to the unbearable.
Their choices are to give up autonomy and nationalism in favor of economic dependency, or retain autonomy and nationalism expressed through the only means they have —- wars that they can at best survive, but can never win.
The present division between Gaza and the West Bank had its origins in the British mandate. Palestine was partitioned between Jews and Arabs.
In the wake of the 1948 War, Arabs lost control of what was Israel; the borders that emerged from this war and lasted until 1967 are still recognized as Israel’s international boundary.
The area called the West Bank was part of Jordan. The area called Gaza was effectively under Egyptian control. Numbers of Arabs remained in Israel as Israeli citizens, and played only a marginal role in Palestinian affairs thereafter.
During the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied both Gaza and the West Bank, taking direct military and administrative control of both regions. The political apparatus of the Palestinians, organized around the PLO —- an umbrella organization of diverse Palestinian groups —- operated outside these areas, first in Jordan, then in Lebanon after 1970, and then in Tunisia after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
The PLO and its constituent parts maintained control of groups resisting Israeli occupation in these two areas.
The idea of an independent Palestinian state, since 1967, has been geographically focused on these two areas. The concept has been that, following mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestinians, Palestine would be established as a nation-state based in Gaza and the West Bank. The question of the status of Jerusalem was always a vital symbolic issue for both sides, but it did not fundamentally affect the geopolitical reality.
Gaza and the West Bank are physically separated. Any axis would require that Israel permit land or air transit between them. This is obviously an inherently unstable situation, although not an impossible one.
A negative example would be Pakistan during the 1947-1971 period, with its eastern and western wings separated by India. This situation ultimately led to the 1971 separation of these two territories into two states, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
On the other hand, Alaska is separate from the rest of the United States, which has not been a hindrance. The difference is obvious. Pakistan and Bangladesh were separated by India, a powerful and hostile state.
Alaska and the rest of the United States were separated by Canada, a much weaker and less hostile state.
Following this analogy, the situation between Israel and the hypothetical Palestine resembles the Indo-Pakistani equation far more than it does the U.S.-Canadian equation.
The separation between the two Palestinian regions imposes an inevitable regionalism on the Palestinian state. Gaza and the West Bank are very different places. Gaza is about 25 miles long and no more than 7.5 miles at its greatest width, with a total area of about 146 square miles.
According to 2008 figures, more than 1.5 million Palestinians live there, giving it a population density of about 11,060 per square mile, roughly that of a city.
Gaza is, in fact, better thought of as a city than a region. And like a city, its primary economic activity should be commerce or manufacturing, but neither is possible given the active hostility of Israel and Egypt.
The West Bank, on the other hand, has a population density of a little over 600 people per square mile, many living in discrete urban areas distributed through rural areas.
In other words, the West Bank and Gaza are entirely different universes with completely different dynamics. Gaza is a compact city incapable of supporting itself in its current circumstances and overwhelmingly dependent on outside aid; the West Bank has a much higher degree of self-sufficiency, even in its current situation.
Under the best of circumstances, Gaza will be entirely dependent on external economic relations. In the worst of circumstances, it will be entirely dependent on outside aid. The West Bank would be neither.
Were Gaza physically part of the West Bank, it would be the latter’s largest city, making Palestine a more complex nation-state. As it is, the dynamic of the two regions is entirely different.
Gaza’s situation is one of pure dependency amid hostility. It has much less to lose than the West Bank and far less room for maneuver. It also must tend toward a more uniform response to events. Where the West Bank did not uniformly participate in the intifada -— towns like Hebron were hotbeds of conflict while Jericho remained relatively peaceful —- the sheer compactness of Gaza forces everyone into the same cauldron.
And just as Gaza has no room for maneuver, neither do individuals. That leaves little nuance in Gaza compared to the West Bank, and compels a more radical approach than is generated in the West Bank.
If a Palestinian state were created, it is not clear that the dynamics of Gaza, the city-state, and the West Bank, more of a nation-state, would be compatible.
Under the best of circumstances, Gaza could not survive at its current size without a rapid economic evolution that would generate revenue from trade, banking and other activities common in successful Mediterranean cities. But these cities have either much smaller populations or much larger areas supported by surrounding territory.
It is not clear how Gaza could get from where it is to where it would need to be to attain viability.
Therefore, one of the immediate consequences of independence would be a massive outflow of Gazans to the West Bank. The economic conditions of the West Bank are better, but a massive inflow of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, for whom anything is better than what they had in Gaza, would buckle the West Bank economy.
Tensions currently visible between the West Bank under Fatah and Gaza under Hamas would intensify.
The West Bank could not absorb the population flow from Gaza, but the Gazans could not remain in Gaza except in virtually total dependence on foreign aid.
The only conceivable solution to the economic issue would be for Palestinians to seek work en masse in more dynamic economies. This would mean either emigration or entering the work force in Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Israel.
Egypt has its own serious economic troubles, and Syria and Jordan are both too small to solve this problem —- and that is completely apart from the political issues that would arise after such immigration.
Therefore, the only economy that could employ surplus Palestinian labor is Israel’s.
Security concerns apart, while the Israeli economy might be able to metabolize this labor, it would turn an independent Palestinian state into an Israeli economic dependency. The ability of the Israelis to control labor flows has always been one means for controlling Palestinian behavior.
To move even more deeply into this relationship would mean an effective annulment of Palestinian independence. The degree to which Palestine would depend on Israeli labor markets would turn Palestine into an extension of the Israeli economy. And the driver of this will not be the West Bank, which might be able to create a viable economy over time, but Gaza, which cannot.
From this economic analysis flows the logic of Gaza’s Hamas. Accepting a Palestinian state along lines even approximating the 1948 partition, regardless of the status of Jerusalem, would not result in an independent Palestinian state in anything but name.
Particularly for Gaza, it would solve nothing.
Thus, the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel flows not only from ideology and/or religion, but from a rational analysis of what independence within the current geographical architecture would mean: a divided nation with profoundly different interests, one part utterly incapable of self-sufficiency, the other part potentially capable of it -— but only if it jettisons responsibility for Gaza.
It follows that support for a two-state solution will be found most strongly in the West Bank and not at all in Gaza. But in truth, the two-state solution is not a solution to Palestinian desires for a state, since that state would be independent in name only.
At the same time, the destruction of Israel is an impossibility so long as Israel is strong and other Arab states are hostile to Palestinians.
Palestine cannot survive in a two-state solution. It therefore must seek a more radical outcome — the elimination of Israel — that it cannot possibly achieve by itself. The Palestinian state is thus an entity that has not fulfilled any of its geopolitical imperatives and which does not have a direct line to achieve them.
What an independent Palestinian state would need in order to survive is:
The recreation of the state of hostilities that existed prior to Camp David between Egypt and Israel. Until Egypt is strong and hostile to Israel, there is no hope for the Palestinians.
The overthrow of the Hashemite government of Jordan, and the movement of troops hostile to Israel to the Jordan River line. A major global power prepared to underwrite the military capabilities of Egypt and those of whatever eastern power moves into Jordan (Iraq, Iran, Turkey or a coalition of the foregoing).
A shift in the correlation of forces between Israel and its immediate neighbors, which ultimately would result in the collapse of the Israeli state. Note that what the Palestinians require is in direct opposition to the interests of Egypt and Jordan -— and to those of much of the rest of the Arab world, which would not welcome Iran or Turkey deploying forces in their heartland.
It would also require a global shift that would create a global power able to challenge the United States and motivated to arm the new regimes.
In any scenario, however, the success of Palestinian statehood remains utterly dependent upon outside events somehow working to the Palestinians’ advantage.
The Palestinians have always been a threat to other Arab states because the means for achieving their national aspiration require significant risk-taking by other states. Without that appetite for risk, the Palestinians are stranded. Therefore, Palestinian policy always has been to try to manipulate the policies of other Arab states, or failing that, to undermine and replace those states.
This divergence of interest between the Palestinians and existing Arab states always has been the Achilles’ heel of Palestinian nationalism. The Palestinians must defeat Israel to have a state, and to achieve that they must have other Arab states willing to undertake the primary burden of defeating Israel.
This has not been in the interests of other Arab states, and therefore the Palestinians have persistently worked against them, as we see again in the case of Egypt.
Paradoxically, while the ultimate enemy of Palestine is Israel, the immediate enemy is always other Arab countries. For there to be a Palestine, there must be a sea change not only in the region, but in the global power configuration and in Israel’s strategic strength.
The Palestinians can neither live with a two-state solution, nor achieve the destruction of Israel.
Nor do they have room to retreat. They can’t go forward and they can’t go back. They are trapped, as Palestinians seemingly destined not to have a Palestine.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Questions Never Answered Amarkhan: 2008/03/02
Strange feeling fool_i_was 2008.02.22
Another Apostate Speaks Up
Journey Through Islam Abdul Quddus 2007/03/16 (read this)
I was not turned into Stone: Esfahani 2006/09/29
Testimony from Bewildered 2006/05/17
Mehmood from India 2006/04/29
My sweet Grandmother and the concept of “Najass” Keyvan Shirazi 2006/04/27
Why I Left Islam By I. Raza 2006/04/05
My Near-Conversion to Islam, by Umma-Allergic 2006/04/03
Ex-Muslim preaches ‘dangers’ of Islam Daniel Shyesteh 2006/04/02
The awakening of Saira 2006/03/31
My Journey to Freedom Meher Ali Khan 2006/02/25
Diane's testimony of Leaving Islam 2006/02/14
A True Story on the Lives of Saudi Women Khaled 2006/01/30
My Testimony by Khaled 2006/01/13
My journey to enlightenment Asad 2005/12/31
My Journey to Freedom M.A. 2005/11/14
2 million ethnic Muslims adopted baptism in Russia 2005/11/02
Musings of a Murtad Isaac Schrödinger 2005/11/02
My Apostasy Mullah Rock n Roll 2005/10.30
Jessica's Testimony Jessica 2005/10/28
This Is What Made Me a Freethinker Imran Hossain 2005/10/11
Lonely Apostate Tanjung 2005/09/11
I Found My Freedom Hamid 2005/09/15
You Opened My Eyes Qadir Sheikh 2005/09/05
My awakening Andrea 2005/07/16
Confessions of a Former Islamist Ahmed Shalakamy 2005/05/21
A Truth Seeker who Found the Truth 2005/05/10
Why I don't Emulate Islam's Prophet Anymore Divyan 2005/05/03
Islam Was My Nightmare Jutta 2005/04/26
An Untold Love Story Yagmur Dursun 2005/03/13
Sabrina's Story 2005/03/10
A Sudanese Apostate 2005/03/03
My Apostasy Aisha R.A. 2005/03/01
Young Apostate Mehdi M. 2005/02/27
Free At Last Apostate Success 2005/02/26
I think I left Islam Latifa R. 2005/02/23
My Boyfriend Left Islam Hanna 2005/02/22
A Jobless Apostate Hamidah 2005/02/18
Almost An Apostate The Agnostic 2005/02/16
I Used to Hate faithfreedom.org African Dan 2005/02/03
Latifa's story 2005/01/23
Apostate Munira 2004/01/10
I am a Saudi ex-Muslim Sahid 2005/01/08
Why I Became an Apostate Rasheeda 2004/01/07
Feeling the Birth Throe Windfall 2005/01/01
I Left Islam Too Syed Ebrahim 2004/12/27
I am an Apostate Too Fatik 2004/12/24
Awakening at Last M.L. 200/12/23
Comment from an old apostate 2004/12/22
New Apostate Ilhan 2004/12/22
From a Dutch Moroccan Apostate A.H.K. 2004/12/20
The Story of Cynthia 2004/12/10
I decided to LEAVE ISLAM K. K. 2004/12/09
Fatima's Story 2004/12/06
Why I chose a normal life Alkaliel 2004/11/19
Good-bye to Islam! by Never a Dhimmi 2004/10/22
AsAsif Raza 2004/01/31
Zaa Brifd 2003/10/27
Former Muslim 2003/09/15
Soy Yo 2003/08/02
Jahed Ahmed 2003/06/16
Ben Rukhsana 2003/05/17
Ismahan Levi 2003/03/17
Abu Lahab 2003/01/16
Ex-Malaysian Muslim 2003/01/06
Aisha S 2003/01/06
Parvin Darabi 200209/12
American Ex Muslim 2002/08/04
Got rid of Islam 2002/07/02
Z Ali 2002/05/30
Shafi H. 2002/05/27
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Or is this a reverse ploy by Israel as a precursor to sending a heavy duty air raid on Iran? Out of a refuelling and operational airport only FIVE minutes flying time away from Iran's nuclear sites.
Hezbollah Israel, Syria and Lebanon: A Tangled Web Israeli-Palestinian Geopolitics and the Peace Process Operation Cast Lead: Israeli Offensive in Gaza
Three Katyusha rockets launched from southern Lebanon exploded in northern Israel’s western Galilee early Jan. 8, Israeli media has reported.
While Israel has been conducting a large-scale military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, its northern front has — until now — remained quiet.
The primary suspect behind the rocket attacks will naturally be the radical Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. It is unclear that Hezbollah would gain much from drawing Israel into a fight at this time, however.
As Stratfor earlier reported, a debate has been taking place inside Hezbollah over whether now was a wise time to open up a northern front in Israel.
A more hawkish faction has argued that another military confrontation with Israel was inevitable, and that the group would be better off engaging Israel now, while the Israel Defense Forces would be constrained by a two-front war given the conflict in Gaza.
It is possible that this faction of Hezbollah has won out and followed through with a plan of action against Israel, thereby seriously escalating the risk of another war in southern Lebanon.
But a Stratfor source in Hezbollah also noted recently that the Iranians, preferring to keep Hezbollah out of the fight, were concerned that other Sunni militants in Lebanon could decide to launch rockets against Israel and draw the group into war.
The key thing to watch for now is whether this rocket attack is the first salvo, or if this is an isolated attack. If the rocket attacks continue, it is far more likely to be Hezbollah than some Sunni militants acting independently.
At this time, it is difficult to say who actually launched the rockets. But Israel has been preparing for a possible conflict with Hezbollah, and the the threat of war on Israel’s northern frontier has just risen dramatically.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
US Prof. to Iran: Let me prosecute Israel Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:52:44 GMT
A US professor has offered the Iranian President a plan according to which he would open a legal case against Israel. Francis Anthony Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois told Fars news agency on Wednesday that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had received his plan for filing a lawsuit against Israel.
According to US professor, 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip are subjected to gradual genocide which is supported by the US and the EU and this would provide him with a legal basis for his case.
Iranian Judiciary Spokesman Alireza Jamshidi on Tuesday announced that Tehran had set up a tribunal to bring the perpetrators of the Gaza offensive to justice. "Under Articles 8 and 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, all countries are legally entitled to launch an investigation into the crimes committed by Israel in Gaza because Israel has jeopardized peace and committed genocide in the coastal region," Jamshidi said.
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3789
Arab European League rioters enter Jewish quarter of Antwerp during anti Israel demonstration carry Hamas flags
January 1, 2009
Jews in Antwerp afraid after riots by league (AEL]
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7806014.stm
The airstrike targeted the eight-story apartment building that was home to Nizar Rayan, 52, ranked among Hamas' top five decision-makers in Gaza. The attack killed 12 other people including two of Rayan's four wives and four of his 12 children, Palestinian health officials said. The Muslim faith allows men to have up to four wives.