Friday, January 27, 2006

Want a second opinion?

Steven Plaut feels exactly like I do:
Now, this may strike you as bizarre, but I have been arguing that the best thing that could happen in the Palestinian Authority "election" would be a strong Hamas victory. Let me explain.

A strong Hamas victory is the only thing that stands a chance of forcing Israelis to open their eyes and wake up. As long as the PLO is in charge, the gigantic game of make-pretend continues. When the Hamas is marching about with costumes of suicide bombers and with its swastikas and other paraphernalia, then there can be no delusions about the Nazification of the Palestinians. It is not that the Palestinians would really be any less Nazified with the PLO in charge. It is just that the Abu Mazen-type representatives at the Potemkin negotiations, and the make-pretend respectability of the PLO hoodlum chiefs, allow the politicians and the media to continue acting as if there is a peace process.

The Hamas victory - and I wish it had been stronger - puts the lie to the game of make-pretend. No longer can any intelligent Israeli pretend that there is any way to deal with the Palestinians other than war. The only way to stop the Kassams and suicide bombers is R&D - Re-Occupation and De-Nazification. And with the Hamas in charge, everyone in Israel is forced to acknowledge this.
I don't find it bizarre at all. And we share the sarcasm too:
So, get ready for new calls to enter into negotiations with Hamas. We can try to persuade them to have a salad bar on the cattle cars transporting Israeli Jews, and perhaps institute recycling and free tuition at the concentration camps Hamas is seeking to build. Israeli professors will soon be wearing their Hamas lapel pins. Hamas poetry will soon be taught to Israeli schoolchildren. Israeli schools will be screening films celebrating the heroism of Palestinian suicide bombers (like the University of Haifa screened Paradise Now this week).

And Second Shoah Now will be the fastest growing movement in Israeli society, holding mass demonstrations for peace in Rabin Square.
There's a lot of Jews who were born a century too late. They would have been proud to represent the Jews in their 'negotiations' with the Germans in the Lodz- and Warsaw ghetto's. It is in fact ironic they were born at all, only to do their utmost to make sure the 'work' the Germans started gets finished by they spiritual heirs.

Polarization: Good for you

So Hamas won the 'election'. By a landslide. Yesterday I said it doesn't really make any difference, but I might be wrong in one respect: Hamas is a group of murderers that will offend a slightly larger audience than any of the other groups of murderers, like Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa, etc. It will be that much harder to pretend that these are people just like us, who just need a country of their own, a job and good plumbing before they become reasonable and let the Jews live in peace.

Polarization. If there are two opposing sides, instead of a compromise (which requires consent from both sides), it enhances the contrast, forces those involved to take sides, leaves no middle ground.

What is good about the Hamas victory is this: Hamas is the same as all the other Arab terrorist gangs, but WITHOUT THE MASK. Their objective is no different from that of the PLO (aka PA, aka Fatah, aka Arafat gang) but they pretend nothing else. For whatever reason, they do not act like a political party, a peace partner, a reasonable representative of the Arabs, a plausible government.

They want to kill Jews, they want to eradicate Israel, they want worldwide
Shariah, and they say so loud and clearly.

It really is kind of refreshing.

The people who are most likely (but that is only in a relative sense) to take notice of the permanent and unchanging desire of the 'Palestinian' people to destroy them are the Israeli's. And as luck would have it, elections are coming soon, and, luckier still, Ariel Sharon will not be taking part. I
wondered recently if there was a man who could lead Israel back on track, to sovereignty and freedom.
Hal Lindsey has
this to say:
I know of only one leader in Israel who has the kind of understanding of Islam and the courage and strategy to deal with them. His name is Benyamin Netanyahu.
Two events changed the whole political landscape in Israel, not to mention the world's. First, Ariel Sharon had his tragic stroke. Second, Hamas was elected to power in a truly free "democratic election."

This last event shocked even the most liberal-minded peacenik dreamer in Israel. Now most of Israel realizes that the only hope to survive is to bring in a leader who will not give anything to "terrorists because he knows it only emboldens them to attack more and gives them power over the few Palestinians that might not want to use the jihad option."

It is my sincere prayer for Israel that they elect Mr. Netanyahu as their next prime minister. I can't see anyone else doing what needs to be done.
I hope he's right. Both about the Israeli's being shocked, and about Netanyahu being the right man for the job.

A person who still doesn't get it is
Emanuele Ottolenghi of National Review:
[Hamas] will have to show their true face now: No more masks, no more veils, no more double-speak. If the cooptation theory — favored by the International Crisis Group and by the former British MI-6 turned talking head, Alistair Crooke — were true, this is the time for Hamas to show what hides behind its veil.
Maybe there are two Hamas's in the world. The one I know does not hide behind veils. They never employed double-speak. That was the PLO.
If they bomb Israel from Gaza — not under occupation anymore, and is therefore, technically, part of the Palestinian state the PLO proclaimed in Algiers in 1988, but never bothered to take responsibility for — that is an act of war, which can be responded to in kind, under the full cover of the internationally recognized right of self-defense.
Really? All the world will suddenly look the other way, or even agree, when Israel takes action against Hamas, only because it is now nominally the new 'government'? Talk about wishful thinking!
No more excuses that the Palestinians live under occupation, that the PA is too weak to disarm Hamas, that violence is not the policy of the PA. Hamas and the PA will be the same: What Hamas does is what the PA will stand for.
If Hamas wished to play this game like Fatah did before them, they could: There are plenty of other terrorist gangs that can be blamed for violence against Israel, giving Hamas plausible deniability. But Hamas was elected exactly FOR its straightforwardness, its honesty. The Arabs love them for it. They will not hide, but be brazen about their actions. They will invite retaliation. They know the muslim part of the world will cheer them on and support them, and the rest of the world will restrain, condemn and block Israel as they always have.

Democracy is an expensive word for mob rule. Here's a good example of that:

Democracy is meaningless if all the people voting are bloodthirsty barbarians:
Hamas now will have to show to the Arab world that an Islamic party that wins a democratic election — everyone’s nightmarish scenario — is not as bad as it seems. For now, the Palestinians have chosen an Islamic option over a secular one. Let them have it. Let them enjoy life under Sharia. It is their choice — that is what self-determination is about — and we must respect it
Wrong. In this sense there is no difference between the 'governments' of Iraq before 2003, the current regime in Iran, and a Hamas PA. They are a threat against all Western countries, against Israel in particular, and THEY AIM TO BE A THREAT. The fact that they were democratically elected makes them WORSE enemies, not lesser.

We must NOT respect it. We must be extremely wary. We must take them at their word when they tell the world what their goals are. And we must act with
extreme prejudice when they show any sign of acting on their intentions.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Like it matters who won

With victory looming, senior Hamas official Mushir al-Masri said the group wanted to work with Fatah in a "political partnership".

But he said Hamas would not hold peace talks with Israel.

"Negotiations with Israel is not on our agenda," he said.

"Recognising Israel is not on the agenda either now."
"Prime Minister"
"political partnership"

These terms mean nothing in the alternative dimension (created by Western politicians and media) that is 'Palestine'.

In a stunning development ahead of official election results...
What choice did 'Palestinians' really have? Was there any 'party' that ran on a platform of peaceful cooperation with Israel, unconditional recognition of Israel, abdication of violence against Israel?

Would any 'Palestinian' have voted for that party, had there been one?

One group of murderous thugs vying with another on who receives the UN cash, who gets to distribute the guns and explosives, and who decides on the best way to kill Jews.

UPDATE: Cox&Forkum feel the same way.

In the end, they do not disagree about anything. Now we wait and see how long it will take before the first cowardly Jew sits down with his wannabe-assassin and starts dealing.

It won't be long.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Hamas not for genocide?

In this OpinionJournal article, Khaled Abu Toameh argues that Hamas is not all bad. And that the reason so many 'Palestinians' vote for them is not because they hate Israel even more than the 'Palestinian Authority' does:
The rampant corruption of Arafat and the top brass of the Palestinian Authority--the only ones who are accused of mishandling the billions that the international community, including the U.S., poured in after Oslo--has been a boon to Hamas, which has attended to the provision of services to a desperately impoverished public. True, Hamas is a terrorist movement responsible for gruesome killings of innocent civilians.
I sense a 'but' coming...
However, the movement that was founded in 1988 also runs a vast network of social, educational, health and economic services, especially in Gaza. In other words, Hamas has been doing exactly what the Palestinian Authority should have been doing all along.[Emphasis mine - Ed]
A Freudian slip of the tonge: That last sentence is kind of telling. I'm sure Khaled didn't intend to actually say what he said here, but say it he did: Hamas has been the main killer of Jews since 2000. And dear Khaled here feels that "Hamas has been doing exactly what the Palestinian Authority should have been doing all along".

Apparently, most 'Palestinians' seem to agree with him. Hamas is the most efficient group of Jew-murderers, not the 'PA'. And it is they who are winning the 'elections'.

Of course Hamas has things going on besides murdering Jews. Showing a social face is how you build a solid base of support. Guerilla warfare 1.01. They even get
UN support, and then a raise this way. Its main goal however is and has always been the 'liberation' of 'Palestine'. By killing Jews.

So why exactly DID (and do) 'Palestinians' vote for Hamas?
...many who cast their ballots for Hamas in the municipal elections were quick to explain that this should be seen as a vote of protest against the Palestinian Authority rather than affiliation with fundamentalists and suicide attacks. Even some Christians in Bethlehem and Ramallah are not afraid to admit that they voted for Hamas.
So their Jew-murdering agenda played no part in this? Just a protest voice against the ruling thugs? And even Christian Arabs were not in the least deterred by the solemn, written genocidal foundations of Hamas?
The promise to murder Jews wasn't the reason to vote for them, but it didn't exactly deter anyone either?

Khaled is not from Finland, I hazard to guess. And his article is so revealing: The PA is hopelessly corrupt, and completely useless as a governing body. That part is news to no one. But the fact that Hamas is apparently the only alternative to voters does not seem to ring any alarmbells, either with the constituency, or with Khaled.

Fact and fiction in an Israeli jail

Marwan Barghouti is an Arab massmurderder, responsible for the violent deaths of at least 14 people directly, and the organizing of dozens of terrorist attacks. He is the founder of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, one of the three main terrorist organizations currently at war with Israel. Barghouti currently resides in an Israeli jail after being sentenced to five consecutive life terms and loose change.

By any standard, this man is a declared mortal enemy of Israel:
After we attain a Palestinian state [in the “West Bank”/Judea and Samaria], there will be greater things for which to strive...There is no room for more than one state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Caroline Glick of the Jeruzalem Post reports that the Israeli authorities have allowed Jihad TV 1 and 2 (aka Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya) to interview him. True to form, the monster extolled terrorism, explained that the Fatah platform calls for terrorism in parallel with negotiations, pressed for a continuation of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, and promised Palestinian voters and the Arab world writ large that Fatah could be counted on to destroy Israel.

At this point, three men walked into the cell. As the interviewers watched and the cameramen recorded, two of the men forced Barghouti on his knees. The third man then drew out a large knife and began sawing the terrorist's head off, starting at the adam's apple. Gruesome screaming and gurgling accompanied the cries of terror and fear from the reporters, as blood splattered and flowed across the jail cell. Relative quiet only returned after Barghouti's head was placed on his still-spasming body, with only the weeping of the Arabic interviewer left to disturb the peace.

Oh. That was just my darker side taking over. It didn't actually happen. What did happen was this: After concluding the interview, with more calls for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews, the reporters were escorted back outside and Barghouti was led back to his cell, where he was fed. After that he went outside for an hour's rest and recreation, followed by a movie at night.

If I had had a choice between these two scenario's (one of which actually took place), I would have chosen mine. Because the alternative is just too horrible: Israel bending over, insisting on being part of the civilized world, assisting in its own murder.

Those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. And this is Judenrat behaviour at its worst.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Inner workings of Islam

I'm going to pay some in-depth attention to Islam, and show why the ideology is incompatible with life in the West, and why, by inference, muslims are incompatible with life in the West. This is assuming that muslims pay anything more than lipservice to their religious leaders and Koran and Hadith.

What I will be doing is discuss different habits, rituals and fatwa's. I will use as subject only those that are in use by the majority of muslims. I will also use as subject rituals that may not be an official part of Islam, but that nevertheless have become the domain of Islam, in some cases even the sole domain.

Todays subject, selected (as all other ones will be) completely at random is:

Friendship between men and women.
Islam forbids close friendships between men and women. A close friendship in this case is defined as anything more than a relationship resulting purely from the workplace, school, the neighbourhood, etc.
The reason for this prohibition is the assumption that any relationship between persons who theoretically COULD engage in sex with each other (not counting homosexuals, these are completely inconceivable) WILL lead to such an encounter.

In Islam, there is a class of people who cannot have sex with each other (in theory). This is called
Mahram. A brother and sister are to each other Mahram. So are a father and daughter.

A man and a woman who are colleagues at work are not Mahram to each other. If one or both of them is a muslim, according to Islam they cannot be close friends. There is a
fatwa against this. You will find the fatwa and its complete motivation here, but I will deal with the main reason here:
"It is common knowledge that in Islam, fornication and adultery are grave sins and committing either bears serious consequences in this world and the Hereafter.

However, what is not so well known is that while declaring fornication and adultery as haram (forbidden), Islam does not merely forbid the actual acts, but it also declares as forbidden each and every circumstance or way that leads to fornication and adultery. Allah says, “Do not come near fornication, for it is indeed lewdness and an evil life-style.” (Al-Isra': 32)

Explaining this, the Prophet said, “The fornication of the eyes is staring, the fornication of the ears is listening, the fornication of the tongue is talking, the fornication of the hands is holding, the fornication of the feet is walking, the fornication of the heart/mind is craving and lusting, and finally, the private parts confirm or negate it.” He also said, “Staring is one of the arrows of Satan.” In another report, he said, “You are allowed to have the first accidental look (which is unintentional), but do not continue to stare.”
"[Islam] also declares as forbidden each and every circumstance or way that leads to fornication and adultery." Such as workplace friendships and neighbourly intercourse. Talking to, or looking at each other - according to Islam - leads to fornication.

There are two results to this fatwa:
  • One is that every devout muslim will be forced to limit his deeper friendships to non-Mahram persons. This is sad for all muslims, but at least they will understand it amongst themselves. The limitation of course also applies to muslim-infidel relationships, which will cause inevitable distance between muslims and non-muslims.
  • Second is that less devout muslims will disregard this fatwa, but only up to a point. They can never escape the law, and more importantly, they can never escape its motive. You may be able to ignore the fatwa and have a close friendship with a person who is non-Mahram (i.e. "eligible", "available") to you, but you can never escape your upbringing, the pressure from your peers and family, and the judgment of your religious leaders.
The conclusion is that there can never be true friendship, trust, understanding or empathy between muslims and non-muslims of opposite sex, because of this ruling. As long as non-muslims are ignorant of this fatwa, any serious relationship between muslims and infidels will be a one-sided affair.

Nb: Mohammed was obsessed by sex. I will go into that subject another time, but suffice it to say that this obsession has had a major influence on most, if not all aspects of Islam. It is clear that he has injected his own way of looking at women (which is well-documented) into his writings, which have subsequently become law for nearly a quarter of the world's population. Wether that will ever be righted remains to be seen.