The December 20 issue of Time Magazine features an article, “Palestinian Youth, Growing the next generation of Israel’s adversaries,” by Karl Vick, in which he contends that the separation wall, erected by Israel on the border line between Israel and the West Bank, is the reason for the separation of the mind, for the absence of familiarity. It is the rationale and the basis, he claims, “there is little chance for the two peoples, one day living as neighbors in peace.”
Really?
“It’s the wall,” rather than the constant brainwashing of the Palestinian youth by their leaders and their schoolteachers.
“It’s the wall,” not the rise of political Islam with its anti-Semitic venom.
“It’s the wall, which isolates the Palestinians, taking them farther away from the Mediterranean coast, and from orientation to the West,” not their seventh century desert Jihad culture and teaching, portraying America and Israel as the latest reincarnation of the devil. Oh, no. Blame it on the wall.
Now, let’s examine the true nature of the separation wall.
It formalizes the border between the state the Palestinians are striving for and the despised Jews and their “Zionist entity.” This wall is a dead ringer for any other border between countries. It makes it difficult for those who wish to cross illegally from one state to another. And in Israel’s case, it prevents terrorists and suicide bombers from crossing into Israeli towns and neighborhoods, killing innocent women and children in the killers’ quest for a fake promise of paradise.
It does not prevent Palestinians from crossing legally into Israel, as thousands of them do on a daily basis, in quest of medical care in Israeli hospitals.
It does not prevent Palestinian children from learning the truth about Israel and Israelis in their schools.
It does not prevent Palestinians from appreciating and relating to Western culture due to their inability to reach the Mediterranean — Islam pulls it off for them.
A formal border between countries, a border preventing illegal infiltration from one side to the other, should not be drawn on as an excuse for hostilities unless the hostile region does not accept the borderline as a formal boundary denoting and marking their territory’s limits.
When Palestinians see the wall, they see an end to their dream of an expanded Palestine, stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, where Jews are no longer the masters of that narrow stretch of land they call Israel. The Palestinians do not like the wall because it formalizes the fact that Israel is not part of Palestine; it is a different country ruled by different people. It does not enclose the Palestinians in a prisonlike state unless they make their own towns and villages feel like prison.
In the fifties and sixties, when I grew up in Israel, the country was young, isolated and tiny. I did not hate America, I loved and admired it, even though I had never been outside the boundaries of my petite world. I knew what Europe was like, even though I had never visited Paris, London or Zurich. I read books, saw pictures, watched movies. I did not feel isolated like those Palestinians who could benefit from the Internet as well, only if they truly wanted to learn about Israel and its people.
Time Magazine had it wrong again. Karl Vick offered a distorted picture of the root-cause dominating the Palestinian “misunderstanding” of what Israel is.
It’s not the separation wall, Karl. It is the persistent brainwashing; it’s the Palestinian’s culture of hate and hubris. It’s the Palestinian’s unwillingness to accept Israel for what it is — a Jewish state.
Five days ago, On December 11, I wrote an article, "What do the Palestinians want?" (also in http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9863), in which I claimed that they were merely bluffing when threatening to call for a unilateral declaration of statehood. I claimed that they put on an act, pretending to yearn for an independent state.
Since then, on December 13, the European Union has threatened to recognize an independent Palestinian state to punish Israeli refusal to halt "illegal" Jewish settlements. This was in response to Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath who had asked France, Britain, Sweden and Denmark and the European Union envoy to the peace process to recognize the truce lines before the 1967 Mideast war as the borders between Israel and a Palestinian state.
On December 15, Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, declared, on Israel's TV, that "the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not interested in another unilateral declaration of statehood." In other words, he said (I am paraphrasing here), that the PA was bluffing… Fayyad went further and explained that he did not see how a unilateral declaration would help the PA's cause. Such a declaration "is not and will not be a part of our thinking," he added. Apparently, when circumstances reached the point of "we have to deliver on our threat," there was nothing but an empty bag, filled with hot air.
What was obvious to me was not obvious to the professionals from the EU. It only proved once more that the EU governments are clueless when it comes to reading the tealeaves, which decorate the desert culture of those who practice "the religion of peace".
For years, it has been taken for granted that the Palestinian leadership, a.k.a. the Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by their current president, Mahmoud Abbas, has been striving for an independent state, free of Israeli occupation. They have seemed to be making every effort at being in charge of their own administrative, economic, security and overall governing responsibilities. Moreover, recent plans by Abbas and his "peace team", the PLO and Fatah Central Committees, have called for a unilateral declaration of statehood with the backing of the international community, since "Israel was not interested in reaching a bilateral peace deal." It does seem genuine. Arab's frustration over Israel's "lack of sincerity and violation of agreements" has left the PA no choice, but to completely abrogate the Oslo Accords and all subsequent agreements signed with Israel, declare independence, then hope for the best. But, surprisingly, the "best", according to the secret agenda of the PA, is nothing more than a prolongation of the status-quo, a continuance of the demonization of Israel by the pro-Arab, and anti-Semitic international communities. Let me explain… If truth be told, the PA does not fancy an independent Palestine confined to the territory of the West Bank (Gaza is ruled by Hamas where the PA has no jurisdiction and no influence what so ever), nor do they desire an independent state status with a genuine, democratic state infrastructure. They are merely bluffing. They put on an act, pretending to yearn for an independent state. It's convenient, it's popular, it's enriching its ruling elite. They stick to the simple reality that getting there is much more fun than being there. And they intend to keep the road to independence longer than a thousand light years. "It does not make any sense," you might say. "Why?" You might contest. "Isn't independence a preferred status to Israeli occupation?" You might pause to catch your breath, then continue, "And even if the PA does not wish for an independent state, what's the motive behind making us believe they do? And how do you explain their unilateral move toward an independent state?" Let me tackle these important arguments by taking on the last challenge first. The potential declaration of a Palestinian state by the PA will not create an existent Palestinian state. It will merely deepen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it may effect another round of Intifada (uprising). Israel will continue to occupy the Palestinian territories; the PA will continue to cry foul; the international anti-Israel propaganda machine will acquire new wings, powered by a fresh cause; the hate engine, the core (and maybe the solitary) force bringing about Arab unity, will reboot to a new phony morality. In short, a unilateral declaration of independence by the PA will yield no change to the actual status of the territory. It, nonetheless, will elevate the PA leadership to a hero standing, will solidify their eminence as bona fide freedom fighters, and will secure their leadership position. It's good politics—not an honest concern for the long-term well-being of their flock. Furthermore, the PA is not prepared for running their own state. They lack basic infrastructure; they depend on Israel for the most basic needs like financial services, medical services, food, energy, even internal security. And Israel (rather than the PA) is obligated by international law to ensure that as an occupier it must provide for normal and healthy living of the residents in the occupied territories. And as long as the Palestinians remain "occupied", as long as they maintain the "poor refugee" image, the naïve world would feel sorry for them, would shower them with money and resources, would endow their leaders with comfortable, worthy of note lifestyle—not a bad outcome for a fake cause. It has become increasingly evident that the PA is not seeking an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They have refused to abandon their demand for a return of the refugees to their non-existent homes in Israel and for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; they have refused to leave the past behind and move on to a better and peaceful future. They keep mounting piles over piles of unreasonable excuses, justifying their unwillingness to negotiate an end to the conflict; they keep encouraging the proliferation of Jew-hatred, since loathing is a strong unifying force in a society overflowing with infighting, rivalry, a culture of endless vengeance and backstabbing between clans, and no tradition or history of national unity. Mahmoud Abbas must realize that once he rules over an independent Palestine he runs the risk of being exposed to his own fake wishes. An independent Palestinian state may not have the legal entitlement to vital Israeli services—services provided at present under the rule of "occupation". He also knows that independence may bring about an eruption of violence in his own backyard as a direct consequence of invoking further feelings of deprivation. Abbas does not want an independent Palestinian state. He does want to maintain the status-quo of an occupied territory, maintain pressure on Israel, keep playing the poor, the needy, the deprived, the weak, so that he can prolong the international pouring of sympathy and material gifting. He keeps on playing loser—"never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Abbas belongs with a culture where logical reasoning and forward looking take a backseat to pride and false honor; where redeeming the shame of the 1948 Naqba (the "catastrophe" of Israel's independence) takes precedence over a peaceful future, free of past fiascoes. The game played by the PA will not lead to a peaceful co-existence. The US should abandon its fruitless efforts of pressuring Israel for increasingly more concessions in its attempts to facilitate an end to the status-quo. It takes two to tango, and the other partners, the PA and its comfortable leaders, are not about to take unnecessary risks. They do not intend to plead for a change. For the past hundred years, they have brainwashed their own people, preaching Jew-hatred. Going against their own teaching, the PA leadership may very well terminate their support base, their careers, their livelihoods, their lives…
Israel's enemies, critics, and even some far-left leaning Israelis equate the Jewish state to the South African Apartheid regime, claiming that Arabs in Israel and in the Palestinian territories are treated similarly to the blacks in pre-Mandela South Africa. What these people are missing is the truth. It's time to lay down some of the facts.
Once you make a genuine attempt to dig and ascertain, you'll find that Israeli Arabs are represented in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, by their brothers. They speak their minds; some criticize the state, yell, and curse the "Zionists" while delivering their hostile message to the public over the official pulpit. It's their right, and they use it.
Israeli Arabs vote freely in the general elections, teach, study and rally at Israeli universities, represent their Israeli clients in courts, serve as judges on the Supreme Court; Israeli Arabs, doctors and nurses, provide medical services in Israeli hospitals; others serve as managers in Israeli companies, overseeing Jewish citizens. In short, they are involved in everyday life to the same degree as their Jewish counterparts.
In my latest visit to Israel, one week ago, I interviewed the deputy director of the Hematology and Oncology Department in the Rambam hospital in Haifa, Professor Myriam Ben Arush, MD. She explained that Palestinian children—one-thousand from Gaza and two-thousand from the West Bank, the so-called Palestinian territories, a.k.a. Israel's enemy territories—cross into Israel on a daily basis for treatment in Israeli hospitals. They stay in the same rooms with Israeli Jewish children, receive identical treatment, and their accompanying adults stay overnight in special hostels, provided by the hospitals for these particular purposes. Most children from the Palestinian territories are badly brain-washed by the Palestinian propaganda upon their arrival; they are scared and anxious at first, but quickly learn that they are welcome and loved just like their Jewish roommates. I have enclosed a video portion of my interview with Professor Ben Arush, where she describes a couple of interesting incidents with children from Gaza.
It should also be noted that Israel is being flooded on a daily basis with thousands of illegal immigrants from Africa who cross into the Jewish state from the Sinai to seek refuge and peace in a country that their Muslim tormentors label an Apartheid state. These refugees find work in the major Israeli cities, but they also contribute to a notable upsurge in the crime statistics. The Israeli government finds it extremely difficult to deport them due to its Jewish heritage concerning the Holocaust, where Jewish refugees were denied entry to safer havens.
One interesting fact that most people in the world are not aware of when speaking critically of Israeli settlements is that the local Arab Palestinians do most of the construction work in these settlements. And notwithstanding their contribution to the Palestinian economy, the Palestinian Authority imposes heavy penalties ($15,000 fine and prison-terms of up to five years) on those Palestinians who are caught working for the Israelis. Still, many Palestinians are willing to take the risk and work for a living in these communities.
One incredible fact that people may find amazing is rooted in the prospects of the so-called "Peace Process," leading to a Palestinian State. When trying to map the boundaries of a future Palestinian state, Israel has proposed some territorial swaps. Israel offered to retain key settlement blocks in Judea and Samaria in return for major Israeli Arab villages adjacent to the West Bank, which would be adjoined to the new Palestinian State. It could have been a fair exchange barring a biting refusal by the Israeli Arab residents of these villages who would not go along with the idea. Although they were Palestinians, they rebuffed the thought of replacing their Israeli citizenship with a Palestinian one. What's more, Palestinians living around Jerusalem have been moving to Israeli Jerusalem, outside the boundaries of what they feared would become part of a Palestinian state. Don't they want to be citizens in their own country? Do they prefer an "Apartheid State" to the dream of independence? It seems that way.
The Palestinian economy is highly dependent on Israel. The Jewish state provides electricity, oil, medicine, banking services, food and other wares, to all of the Palestinian territories. There are extensive commercial ties between Israel and the Palestinian territories, without which the Palestinians would not be able to maintain their comfortable (relative to many neighboring Muslim states) livelihood. Still, Palestinian politics continues to deny Israel's right to exist; it continues to glorify terrorists, killers and suicide bombers; it keeps on brain-washing the young with its custom-made hate-dipped propaganda; it maintains its anti-Semitic cant over their government-controlled media; it rewrites history to justify its objectives, and it calls for genocide of all Jews in Israel and beyond.
If you were enlightened by all of the above, yet astonished by the Palestinian negative reactions to all the benefits they derive from living next to the Jewish State, don't be bewildered. Your Western logic and rationale doesn't rule the roost of the Middle East. Israel's Arab neighbors follow the laws of the desert as they were laid out by their seventh century prophet. It's a sad fact, another truth, which western leaders fail to comprehend and are tripped over time and again.
The most prominent Apartheid states in this world are the Muslim states since in following the Qur'an they treat non-Muslims as inferior beings—as dhimmis. Calling Israel an apartheid state and counting the Arabs out of that sphere is like watching an undeveloped film negative and calling it the final true color masterpiece.
It happened while I was driving in downtown Haifa. They were standing in a busy intersection, all six of them, flashing signs—“For Israel…. Against Occupation.” I wanted to stop and ask them if they understood the contradiction, since Palestinian Arabs refer to Israel-proper as “The Occupation.” Unfortunately, the heavy traffic behind my car made me move on, and the clueless leftists were spared of my attempt to educate them. It would not have mattered anyway, I told myself. These simple-minded folks believe in their mission as if it were their God-given religion.
That evening I was lucky to enjoy supper in the company of a couple of my old Israeli friends. As the conversation evolved we (unintentionally) touched on the subject of my earlier sign-spotting experience. My host agreed with the protesters, “We must separate from the Palestinians,” he claimed. “We should stop the occupation.”
I smiled. I wanted to agree with my friend. I dreaded the notion that the Arabs should become a majority inside the Jewish state. Separation is a noble ideal. Problem is, it’s an ideal; it cannot be presently implemented, not while maintaining state security at the same time. But then, I pressed my friend, asked him to spell out details of his views. “Should Israel reestablish itself to the west of the cease-fire lines of the pre-1967 border (a.k.a. the Green Line)? Should Israel evacuate the Jerusalem neighborhoods, or the large Jewish towns built on grounds absorbed following the six-day-war in 1967? Or should Israel trust the Arabs not to smuggle heavy weapons from the state of Jordan into the West Bank Palestinian towns, then withdraw it’s military from the Jordan valley, transfer control over the border-crossing to the Palestinians.
To my amazement, my friend’s answer to all of the above was a hesitant “No.” He realized that evacuating large neighborhoods in Jerusalem, or large towns immediately across the Green Line was impractical. He realized that recent history in connection with the evacuation of the Gaza/Egypt border allowed Hamas to smuggle heavy arms into Gaza, only to follow by consistent rocket attacks on Israeli towns, and then war—a lesson, a warning for what would happen when the Israeli military ceases control of the Jordan valley. He realized that Israeli Arabs resist joining a Palestinian state controlled by a Palestinian Authority (PA) located in the West Bank, even though their towns are adjacent to the potential border of that potential state. Israeli Arabs prefer their Israeli citizenship, some even buy land outside of what they fear will become a future Palestinian state—a detail affecting the promise of significant territorial exchange between Israel and a future Palestinian state, making it much less practical.
“So what’s the answer?” I kept asking. “How can we stop the occupation?”
“We should keep everything you mentioned,” he answered. “We should leave the rest for the Palestinians.”
My friend did not respond to my comeback. “But this is unacceptable to the PA,” I said. “They will not sign any peace agreement under these conditions. They are not willing to compromise on any inch of land. And that includes “occupied” territory such as major Israeli cities like Tel Aviv, Haifa, Natania, including your home.”
We were interrupted at that point by the wives who realized that the temperature in the room was approaching a boiling point. They changed the subject. Coffee and cake took center stage.
Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has been under intense pressure to agree to the resumption of direct talks with Israel. He is not alone. My janitor has finally succumbed to my pressure and agreed to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. "Funny," you might say, breaking a tentative grin, "but your janitor does not count; he is not in charge of anything Palestinian."
"I know," I would admit, smiling back conspiratorially. "But so is Mr. Mahmoud Abbas."
Let's be real. Mr. Abbas pretends to be in charge of Gaza. He is not. Gaza is a separate pseudo state, province or territory under the control of Hamas; it has a government, an army, all run by an Islamic fanatic, mafia-style leadership. It even has a nickname—Hamastan. Abbas would not dare resting his foot on that sacred Palestinian ground. He knows he won't last there for more than a jiffy. What's more, it's no longer a secret that Abbas is not in charge of the entire West Bank either. The only little parcel (within his Palestinian homeland) he feels safe is confined to a few blocks in Ramallah, and even control of that slice may be put in jeopardy once he recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. It makes no sense to deliberate a two-state solution when reality calls for a five or a six-city-state product.
We can ignore the fact that Abbas is not in charge; we can pretend that he represents more than just a small minority of old guards who stand to benefit financially from being perceived as moderate, non-violent peace seekers. We can ignore the fact that his predecessor, Arafat, turned down the most generous offer an Israeli Prime Minister would ever make to a Palestinian leader as a price for peace, and that no Arab leader can survive after accepting less. We can ignore the fact that Abbas's Ph.D. dissertation was about denial of the Holocaust. Israel can play the game and negotiate with him, trade land for his written promise of peace. And then, once the Israeli military transfers total control to Abbas's security forces, when the last Israeli soldier leaves town—the countdown will be set in motion.
I give it no more than a month before Hamas takes over the West Bank, transforming it to an Iranian base before launching a Jihad against the Zionist entity. There will be no peace; there will be a bloody showdown.
But not to worry. Abbas will find ways to avoid signing any peace agreement with Israel. You can't drag a leader to a peace conference, make him sign on the bottom line even when the document's promise is hollow. In the Arab world, it's the appearance that counts, it's the flowery language that ignites emotions, it's the honor that must be redeemed. All these essential ingredients will be washed away once the document is signed. Peace is boring; hate is exciting. It's an essential brain food for many Palestinians. Without hate, without the promise of a violent victory over the "Zionist Occupation", a Palestinian leader can offer little to his flock. The echo of Egypt’s president and leader of the Arab world, still serves as a guiding principle to many in the Arab world. “The liquidation of Israel,” he announced on March 8, 1965, “will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter a Palestine not covered with sand, but soaked in blood.”
Palestinians perceive a peace agreement with Israel as a document formalizing their unconditional surrender. Their humiliating defeat in 1948, in which they watched the Jewish people establish a Jewish state on land they considered Islamic, is a shameful experience they are unable to get over with. That humiliation and the corresponding urge to redeem the lost honor is more commanding than the sensible strategy of calling for a peace offensive. Some cool-headed Arab leaders have claimed that the peace process can serve as a smoke screen in pursuit of what had been defined as the Salami Principle—one slice at a time. It boils down to putting international pressure on Israel to weaken itself through a series of withdrawals to earlier borders, preceding the final assault on what’s left of the Jewish state whose indefensible borders would make it an easy prey. And in the Middle East, reclaiming a lost honor overshadows straightforward logic.
A two-state solution is a mirage, an illusion borne by western leaders and the world’s media. It's infeasible because the Palestinian side is divided into several camps or city-states. It's impractical because it is perceived as an unconditional surrender in a culture where (false) honor eclipses all else. And it's unacceptable to Palestinians who view a single state solution, Palestine, as their ultimate objective.
War is a horrific business. I don't like it; neither do I wish to have it forced upon us. Nevertheless, the US is fighting a war in Afghanistan, and Israel prepares for the next round with Hamas, Hezbollah and their puppet master—Iran. The Islamic enemy, in both cases, is playing by their own barbaric rules—unrecognized by the Geneva Convention or by any civilized society, but advocated in the Qur'an. They care about human life in so far as we fret about the next mosquito's; they behead their POWs, enslave their women, terrorize their own people, their own children, abuse them, use them as body armor. All because both US and Israel made it clear—human shields are the most effective defense for safeguarding the Shahid and the Mujahidin.
The US and Israeli l rules of engagement in the Afghan theatre and in Israel's next battlefield respectively were aimed at preventing civilian casualties by prohibiting troops from firing unless they're shot at—or from launching artillery attacks or airstrikes when civilians are deemed near the target. Israel went a step further. The IDF has decided to integrate a Humanitarian Affairs Officer into each combat unit in response to the Goldstone report.
A recent example from Kandahar, reported by CBS news (July 7, 2010), tells the story of U.S. soldiers being pounded with a barrage of mortar rounds. The Americans requested permission to launch retaliatory mortar shells or summon an airstrike against the enemy. HQ officers denied their request because the insurgents were too close to a cluster of mud-brick houses, potentially with civilians inside.
I am troubled by these rules, which not only have effectively forced the good guys to fight with hands tied behind their backs, but also encourage the enemy to employ tactics designed to make use of human shield since it has become highly effective. It has been evidenced lately that the brave Shahids have increased their inclination to shooting or launching rockets from inside homes, schools, mosques or other civilian type structures, knowing that they are protected by the insane rules imposed on the other side.
These rules accomplish the exact opposite of what they have been intended to pull off. They are increasing the likelihood that either more civilians would be hurt in the crossfire or more American or Israeli troops would be killed as a result. What's more, they lower our troops' morale, and limit their ability to defend themselves, thus reducing their will to take risk and be effective on the battlefield. If we sacrifice our soldiers' lives in order to protect civilians on the other side, we will not win the war. We'd be better off quitting early, leaving the scene, saving our boys.
War is not a humanitarian affair. If we fight a war, we must make it clear that we fight to win. Collateral damage is unavoidable if winning is our objective. Protecting the lives of our soldiers must be our highest priority, higher than any fine humanitarian goal designed to make our conduct seem principled and honorable in our minds, but sick, weak and stupid in our enemy's eyes.
If being fair and honorable is in conflict with staying alive and being victorious, let's not be fair, let's not be stupid. Let us come back in one piece. Let us win.
Slowly but surely Islam has been gaining ground in America. New York City is caving in to Muslims' demands for building a Grand Mosque next to Ground Zero—The Cordoba House. Building mosques on sacred grounds is what Islam has always done by asserting its supremacy. Throughout history and starting with Muhammad, Muslims converted other defeated religions’ places of worship into mosques. They transformed that particular practice into a tradition by letting their defeated enemies digest the fact that Islam had supplanted their former religion and their former culture. This practice began with the pagan pantheon of the Ka'aba, in Mecca, then continued with thousands of churches and synagogues. One of the earliest and most famous examples was in Damascus, where in the year 705, Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik took the church of St. John from the Christians and had it rebuilt as a mosque, which is now known as Umayyad Mosque. In 1453, they converted the famous Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople into a mosque, immediately after capturing the city and changing its name to Istanbul. To make the buildings fit for a mosque, the Turks destroyed the icons, plundering their precious plating in the process, and defaced the frescoes.
Perhaps one of the most outrageous acts of hubris took place in Jerusalem where Caliph Umar laid the foundation for two mosques—Al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock—on the Temple Mount, the most sacred site in Judaism. This particular location is the place of the ancient Jewish temple, a place falsely claimed by the Muslims as their pre-historic capital (although it has never been mentioned in the Qur'an).
And now, the City Council issued a resolution calling for the school system to observe two Muslim holidays. The excuse—the council, in its resolution, cited statistics from a Muslim source claiming that there are about 12 percent Muslim students in the New York City public schools.
Aside from the fact that a non-Muslim body should verify this statistics, this new development is alarming, yet not unforeseen. Islam has not abandoned its call for Jihad. It only expanded the approach. Instead of resorting to a single strategy, made evident by the prophet Muhammad and practiced by Bin Laden, Islam has adopted a stealth form of Jihad to go side by side with the violent adaptation.
It is no secret that Muslims count on stealth Jihad to accomplish what they are unable to realize by way of violence. Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's ruler once clarified it. He said, "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam without swords, without guns, without conquest. What he referred to was the alarming statistics showing that Europe will grow to be an Islamic land by 2050 if current trends of Muslim immigration and Muslim birthrate persist. It's a fact that in today's Europe (depending on the particular country or region) 30% to 50% of newborns are Muslims. In Canada, Islam is the fastest growing religion, and in the US, projections confirm that by 2050 there will be 50 million Muslims—all American citizens.
Islam is a bigger threat than Nazism. Both are supremacists, totalitarian, endorse violence. Islam makes no secret of its desire to Islamize and dominate the world, impose Sharia Law, exterminate the Jews. But unlike Nazism, Islam is wrapped in cotton wool—the guise of religion. Without the shield of religion to hide behind, Islam would be banned in the civilized world since it is a political ideology of hate, just like Nazism. But Islamo-Nazis have recruited the political left in Western countries to their Jihad. They employ these useful idiots to advocate freedom of religion, freedom of speech and diversity as an excuse for Islamization. Islam rejects America's values, including freedom and diversity; it despises America, while at the same time it makes use of the American constitution and its democratic institutions in an effort to advance its stealth Jihad. This is what Hitler pulled off in Germany. He exploited Democracy in his push to capture command of the government, and once in charge, he abolished Democracy, freedom, individual security, while installing his dictatorship and sick ideology. Islam is no different.
Warning signs have been surrounding us from every corner. This latest attempt by Muslims in New York to add Islamic holidays to the school calendar is a merely stealth, sneaky move designed to make Islam a major American religion on its way to dominance.
I must come clean here by pointing out that Mayor Bloomberg came out against this idea. His rationale bordered on political correctness. He did not attack Islam by claiming that it is a political ideology of hate, but rather explained that the school year is already too short, and if every religion demands that all New Yorkers celebrate every religious holiday of every religious group, the school year will turn out even shorter. The mayor may not have the final word, though. All of us, freedom loving Americans must be aware of the Islamic threat to take over the world. We must support the mayor. This new wave of Islamization in America must be stopped.
Islamic leaders, seeking to motivate would be suicide bombers, inducing them to commit murder in the name of Allah, have been quoting Islamic sources, which promise 72 Virgins in Paradise to those who kill and are killed in Jihad for Allah.
Many Muslims, especially those exposed to Western culture, are aware of the jokes and the ridicule that the 72 Virgins legend has brought upon them and upon their brother believers. Consequently, they blame the Jews for spreading the myth in an attempt to downgrade the image of the Islamic "freedom fighters".
Despite the disclaimer by some Muslims, the truth is very clear. The 72 Virgins notion has its origins in the Qur'an. Although the holy book does not specify the number as 72, it does say that those who fight in the way of Allah and are killed will be given a great reward. It goes on to stipulate that Muslims will be awarded with women in Islamic heaven. It even describes their physical attributes—large eyes (Q 56:22) and big, firm, round "swelling breasts" that are not inclined to sagging (Q 78:33). The Qur'an refers to these virgins as houri, companions of equal age, but the highly-flavored emphasis of their bodily characteristics, including their virginity, gave rise to many hadiths and other Islamic writings.
Hadith 2687 is where the number 72 is mentioned. "The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and 72 houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a."
Qur'anic commentator Al-Suyuti (died 1505) and Orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) graphically elaborated sensual pleasures attributed to Muslims in paradise". Al-Suyuti wrote, "Each time we sleep with a Houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [i.e. Muslim] will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas."
On the whole, the Qur'an and the hadiths are filled with sexual fantasies that Muslim men are awarded when they reach Islamic heaven. Anas bin Malik, an Islamic scholar, claimed that "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number… The Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." Muhammad (hadith 24) apparently claimed that devout Muslims would be given the sexual strength of 100 persons upon their arrival in Heaven. (This is apparently more than what was attributed to the prophet himself).
The sexual obsession by Muslim men as conveyed by Islamic writings, takes its cue from the founder of the religion. The description depicts him as a sexual predator. Aisha, Muhammad's wife since she was a nine-year-old girl, described her sexual experiences with the prophet. When she was six years old, he could not have intercourse with her due to her young age. As a consolation prize, he placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it softly. Aisha explained that unlike other believers, the prophet had control over his penis."
Being consistent with its sexual obsession and predatory practices, the Qur'an permits pedophilia (sura 65:4). It also discusses rape in detail. It lets you know that men can rape female slaves and captives (Q 23:6), even in front of their husbands (Q 4:24). Other writings advise that when having sex with captives, it's better if you don't pull out at the end (Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718).
It's no wonder that 72 Virgins in Paradise are a fundamental piece of Islamic culture. Sex, sex abuse, pedophilia, and enslavement of women take central stage within that religion. Encouraging martyrdom by pointing to sexual rewards in heaven is a natural corollary of that tradition. Although the Qur'an may not be as specific, it nevertheless, offers many clues, which subsequent inscriptions reinforced, interpreted, and broadened.
I have written this article in response to many questions I had been asked by book club members who'd read my book 72 Virgins. In that book, I did not discuss the roots of that evil thinking. Instead, I told a story, a thriller about a group of Jihadi terrorists and their quest for martyrdom. The story builds on the Jihadists' motivation for targeting so many innocents and exploiting the victims' massacre as a stepping-stone to their dream of eternal paradise next to Allah's throne. The real question I've tried to answer is not whether Jihadists' plots will ever cease to emerge. There's no chance of that. The question the book seeks to answer is—will the next one be stopped before it's too late?
General McChrysral (was) resigned today. It was a smart move—not by the president, but rather by the general. McChrystal is a brilliant real life strategist. He must have realized that the war in Afghanistan was going badly. The war was not winnable under the present constraints, requiring him to play by rules he considered wrong, poorly devised, politically motivated by men who did not understand what it took to win it. What's more, the strategy he advocated—a government in a box—was not working due to the inability of the corrupt, apathetic Afghan government to put it into a sustainable action. McChrystal's strategy has also brought about a considerable measure of criticism due to its semi-covert financial support, bribes, and disregard for the drug trafficking business conducted by corrupt officials and warlords. It was, still is, the only way he could win their backing and cooperation, protect his troops, minimize casualties.
The general did not want to go down in history as the one who could not bring home the trophy. He was not about to be nicknamed - Loser. He believed that if it had been up to him, he would have run a different war. He would have gathered more resources, troops, money, and local authority. He would not have been subject to a withdrawal date before watching a "Mission Accomplished" banner hung over the White House. He would have returned home a hero to a hero welcome; he would have been an Eisenhower.
General McChrystal made a choice. He was not drunk when he gave an interview to Rolling Stone Magazine. Not only was he sober; he was calculated and alert. He wanted out of his mission, and he wanted the reason to be out as well. He knew that the president would fire him in consequence of his interview, and he was looking forward to the boot.
His words would prove right, he supposed. The war would be another Vietnam, but he would not be blamed. On the contrary, he would be praised for his foresight; he would be considered a leader, a visionary, maybe a future president. Time would prove him right, he deemed. He would sacrifice his present job as part of this gambit. It would pay off handsomely in days to come.
Even though the Afghan war would end up badly, he knew it would no longer be his fault; he would not be responsible for the looming disaster; he would still be a winner.
