Tweet
Media Monitors Network
Nov 18 2004
Jewish Leadership Fuels Open War
by Jafar Syed
"Why the common enemy of Christian and Muslims wants an open war
between them? It is a topic that needs an in-depth analysis. Remember
one hint - `dual containment.' If Christians and Muslim cut each
other throat, who will gain?"
`Koran' is a Mein Kampf of war."
-- Winston Churchill
`Koran' is a deadly doctrine."
-- Fouad Ajami, John Hpokins University
Anti-American and Anti-Muslim forces have been pursuing a two-pronged
strategy to wide the gulf between America and the Muslim World. They
are prompting the American leadership to declare an open war against
the entire Muslim World. To justify this war, they are painting the
Muslim World as the No. 1 enemy of America. By pretending to side
with America in this `terror war,' these anti-American and
anti-Muslim forces give the impression that they are the most
patriotic segment of American society. In reality, they are the No. 1
enemy of America. Because in this `terror war,' there will be no
winner. American Century will be buried alongside the destroyed
Muslim World. This is what they want. Why? To be discussed later.
There is a community of interests between the anti-American and
anti-Muslim forces and the anti- American and anti-Muslim media. So
it is not surprising that the that the anti-American and anti-Muslim
media does not feel any reservation when it fans hate between America
and the Muslim World. It does not feel any reservation in spreading
highly toxic opinions and statements.
Anti-America and anti-Muslim forces are not happy with the present
conduct of `terror war.' They are not even happy with the slogans
under which this `terror war' is waged. In their view, `terror war'
under the slogans of axis of evil, international terrorism, and
militant Islam do not define the enemy correctly. They demand from
the Bush administration to confess and declare that this war is a
clash of civilization.
`Impelled by 9/11, President George W. Bush told the American people,
we are at war, at war with an axis of evil. Mr. Bush defined the
enemy as international terrorism. Given this amorphous enemy,
America's war aims are equally amorphous. However, since the recent
9/11 commission, Mr. Bush has defined the enemy as militant Islam - a
tautology made current by Daniel Pipes. Unfortunately, the war
symbolized by 9/11 is even more monumental: it is nothing less than a
clash of civilization as eminent scholars like Bernard Lewis and
Samuel Huntington have shown, and, in the case of Islam, a
civilization animated by a world religion.' -- Professor Paul
Eidelber, The Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
These anti-American and anti-Muslims forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that this militant Islam is
real Islam. Confess and declare that `Koran' is a `deadly doctrine.'
Confess and declare, `Koran is the Mein Kampf of war.'
`If American war aims are to be sound, Washington policy-makers must
understand that `militant Islam' is Islam pure and simple. The heart
of Islam is the Koran, which the renowned Fauad Ajami of John Hpokins
University refers to as a `deadly doctrine,' and which Winston
Churchill describes as the Mein Kampf of War. America and Islam are
indeed engaged in a clash of civilization, which virtually every
Muslim writer would admit.' -- Professor Paul Eidelber, The Jewish
Press Magazine, 10.22.04).
These anti-American and anti-Muslims forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that Muslim `moderates' are as
deadly as `the fundamentalist' are and they are also irrelevant in
the Muslim World.
`To compound the confusion, pundits focus the hopes of Americans on
Muslim `moderates,' as if this minute fraction is strategically
relevant in Islam's global war against `infidels.' The fact that
Muslim `moderates' advocate the destruction of Israel, America's only
reliable ally in the Middle East, should caution us about the depth
or reliability of their moderation.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The
Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
These anti-American and anti-Muslims forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that the religion of 1.2
billion Muslim is evil. Confess and declare that Muslims do not
believe that anything is common in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
`The conflict between liberal democracy and Nazism was a conflict
between good and evil. The U.S. is loath to refer to its conflict
with Islam in such terms. No one can feel comfortable calling the
religion of 1.2 billion people `evil.' Islam is commonly regarded as
a monotheistic faith having much in common with Judaism and
Christianity. This is NOT the way adherents of the Koran regarded
Judaism and Christianity!' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The Jewish
Press Magazine, 10.22.04)
These anti-American and anti-Muslim forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that the Islamic Jihad is the
root cause of `terror.' Confess and declare that U.S. main objective
is to eliminate the murderous ethos of Islamic Jihad. Confess and
declare that Jihad is evil. Confess and declare that Islam is an
enemy of peace and civilized society.
`To formulate war aims appropriate to Islam, the U.S. must identify
the root cause of the conflict, Islam's Jihadic ethos - its bellicose
and contemptuous hatred of non-Muslim. It must be the remitting
objective of the U.S. to eliminate or radically alter this murderous
ethos. Jihadism must be condemned as evil, and so long Islam
propagates this ethos, Islam must be denounced as the enemy of peace
and of civilized society.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The Jewish
Press Magazine, 10.22.04
Professor Paul Eidelberg also recommends a course of action, which
the America should adopt.
`The U.S. should issue a declaratory policy having the following
elements: (1) The U.S. will regard as a belligerent any Islamic
states that support or harbors terrorists. (2) The U.S. will regard
any Islamic state that encourages its people to hate and kill
non-Muslims as racist, and will take action to have that state banned
from the United States. (3) The U.S. will proclaim that the bellicose
concept of Jihad contradicts the UN Charter as well as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which prescribes `tolerance and
friendship among all nations, racial, or religious groups.'
Accordingly, the U.S. will regard public renunciation of Jihad as the
litmus test of whether a Muslim state is sincerely committed to peace
and worthy of diplomatic relations.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The
Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
Professor Paul Eidleberg blames the Bush administration for avoiding
the right conclusions, which are set by Professor. This is the reason
there is a confusion among the Americans about the war in Iraq.
`The Bush administration avoids this conclusion, which is why it has
failed to formulate, with any precision, America's war aims.
Americans are therefore confused. They are divided over the war in
Iraq and about U.S. policy in the Middle East. The world's only
superpower flounders, intellectually and militarily unprepared to
confront its ill-defined, ubiquitous enemy.' -- Professor Paul
Eidelberg, The Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22. 04
Professor Paul Eidleberg also advises the Bush administration to
forget `democratization' of the Muslim World.
`The war aims of the United States should not include wholesale
democratization of Islamdom - an impractical and, in many countries,
an undesirable objective. In such countries, constitutionally
monarchy is preferable. The political objective is to rid Islam of
tyranny. The moral objective is to rid Islam of its jihadic ethos. In
pursuing these objectives, the U.S. will require the cooperation of
other nations. Such cooperation will be more forthcoming if American
war aims are clearly articulated, tenaciously pursued, with
consistency and more integrity.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The
Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
Paul Eidelberg chided his own fellow-traveler, anti-America and
anti-Muslim World, Mr. Pipe for separating `militant Islam' from
`real Islam.' For Prof. Eidelberg both are the same. He reminded Mr.
Pipe what he himself perceived in his earlier venomous spit.
`However, much institutions, attitudes, and customs have changed, the
Muslim approach to politics derives from invariant premises of the
religion and from fundamental theme established more than a
millennium ago.' -- In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power
quoted by Prof. Eidelberg, The Jewish Magazine, October 22, 2004)
Prof. Eidelberg also warns the Americans that this `terror war' will
end in the destruction of one of the `warring party' as happened in
Second World War.
`The current clash of civilization will eventually result in the
ascendancy of one and the decline of the other, as was the case in
the less encompassing conflict between liberal democracy and Nazi
Germany - a conflict that did not involve a world religion. But it is
precisely because Islam is a world religion that the U.S., the
champion of tolerance and pluralism, finds it so difficult to
identify its enemy.' -- Prof. Eidelberg, The Jewish Magazine, October
22, 2004).
Prof. Eidelberg is not alone in this incessant hate campaign to widen
the gulf between America and the Muslim World. All common enemies of
America and the Muslim World want an open war between the two. These
common enemies are worried that American leadership might not open a
new front against the Muslim World after the occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Read what the anti- Americans anti-Muslims
Forward suggests to the Bush administration in its first weekly
publications after Nov. 2, 2004. Destroy and occupy Iran - this is
the first message from the Forward.
`Fresh off of victory, President Bush will face a major test in the
coming weeks on the multilateral approach he has adopted toward
Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Even as Washington is
backing European efforts to pressure Tehran, the newly re-elected
president is looking to the United Nations Security Council to pick
up the lead on thwarting Iranian Nuclear aspiration.' -- Marc
Perelman, Forward, November 5, 2004)
The caption of the article is `Re-elect Bush Faces Benchmark Test On
Iranian Nukes Policy. Multilateral Approach at Stake)
Professor Louis Rene Beres, professor of International Law,
Department of political science, Purdue University, is suggesting
something else.
`International law is not a suicide pact. As Iranian nuclearization
heats up to a point of no return, Israel's leaders will soon have to
make vitally important decisions on launching defensive first
strikes. Faced with an existentially hostile regime in Tehran, these
leaders cannot now be expected to simply sit back and wait for the
regime to deploy atomic weapons. Less than half the size of Lake
Michigan, Israel's `wiggle room' in strategic survival matters is
profoundly limited.' -- The Jewish Press Magazine, October 22, 2004)
The title of the article is `Israel, Iran and Preemptive Attack
Striking First Under International Law.'
Prof. Beres does not give Iran the same right of preemptive attack as
he gives `wiggle room' state called Jewish state. Perhaps the right
of preemptive attack is `divine right' given only to the `chosen
leadership'
Second, Prof. Beres is sending a clear message to the re-elect Bush.
If you don't do it, Israel will.
Besides Iran, anti-American and anti-Muslim agenda setter Prof. Beres
is not happy with the Bush administration and Sen. Kerry for not
declaring an open war against Islam.
`Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry addressed an absolutely key
issues of current American foreign policy in the opening debate. Are
we now involved in a largely operational struggle against very
particular terror group and individuals, or -rather - are we
embroiled in something much larger? Should we now be focusing on
political, military and logistical issues (the position of both
candidates) or upon the much wider religious and cultural context
from which our principal terror enemies are spawned?" -- Prof. Louis
Rene Beres, The Jewish Press Magazine, October 15, 2002.
The title of the article is `After the first great debate: a war on
terror or a clash of civilization? This crucial point was missed in
the first presidential debate.'
Prof. Beres reminds the U.S. leadership that its `political
correctness' has political consequences. It should stop playing soft
balls. It should confess and declare that Islam is against all major
`religions' of the world, including Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism.
`The answers are important, as they will determine what security
measures we choose to adopt. And, if we can finally ignore the
constraints imposed by considerations of political correctness, these
answers are plain and incontestable. The roots of current and
still-impending anti-American terror lie deeply embedded in
civilizational hostility, in a partial but widespread Arab/Islamic
hatred for Western values and post-Enlightenment modernity. This
constructed and codified hatred extends to other major religions,
primarily Judaism, but also to certain parts of Christianity,
Hinduism, and Buddhism.' -- Prof. Beres, The Jewish Press Magazine,
October 15, 2004)
Prof. Beres reminds the Americans and the Europeans that they should
awake up to the `gathering threats' of mass killings with
unconventional weapons. Prof. wants the Bush administration to
confess and declare that the `terror war' is `authentic clash of
civilization.'
`The unvarnished truth of the terrorist threat to the United States
and the West remains widely misunderstood. We face suicidal mass
killings with unconventional weapons in the future not because there
exists a small number of pathological terrorists murderers, but
because we are embroiled - however unwittingly - in an authentic
clash of civilization. While we all wish it weren't so, wishing will
get us nowhere. Our only hope is to acknowledge the relentlessly
bitter source of existential danger, and proceed to fight the real
war on terror from there.' -- Prof. Beres, The Jewish Press Magazine,
October 15, 2004)
Note these anti-Americans and anti-Muslims forces do not target only
the Muslim World. Nobody on this earth is save from their
demonization - including the United States.
`The dissolution of the Jewish state has been the goal of the members
of the so-called `quartet,' the anti-Israel U.S. State Department,
the anti-Semitic E.U. (European Union), the hostile U.N. (United
Nations) and Russia, whose history of anti-Jewish pogroms are
legendry." -- Emanuel Winston, Middle East Analyst and Commentator,
The Jewish Press Magazine, October 22, 2004.
The world is told again and again that America is `blessed' with
`freedom of speech'. It is emphasized that `freedom of speech' should
be the norm of the world. Then why the only `chosen leadership' is
privileged to exercise the right of speech right? Then why anybody in
the entire world is not free to exercise this right by criticizing
the outrageous acts of this `chosen leadership?' Then why the `chosen
leadership' is free to demonize the religion of a community but
National Front MEP Bruno Collnisch is not free to question `gas
chambers' existence.
`I am not questioning the existence of concentration camps ... but on
the numbers of deaths, historians can discuss it. As to whether gas
chambers existed, that's up to the historian to determine.' -- Philip
Carmel, Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004.
What price this French has to pay for these alleged remarks, watch
and see. He is disputing only a happening. Religion is a more
sensitive issue than a happening.
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, then why
Jewish donors are threatening the Duke University in North Carolina
to face the music. Its alleged crime is:
"A major US university is coming under pressure from some Jewish
donors for allowing a pro-Palestinian conference that urged
divestment from Israel over its alleged apartheid policies. The
weekend conference, at Duke University in North Carolina, also heard
calls for an end to Israel as a Jewish state.' -- Janine Zacharia,
Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004.
The Duke administration is running for a shelter and is begging for
mercy.
`The Duke administration said it was allowing the conference to take
place as part of its commitments to free speech.' -- Janine Zacharia,
Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004)
What price the Duke university has to pay for allowing the
student-run Palestine Solidarity Movement to have its meeting? Watch
and see. If the chosen leadership is free to patronize anti-Christian
movies like `last temptation' and anti-Muslim books like `Satanic
Versus,' then why Duke University cannot permit students to arrange a
meeting. Religions is more sensitive issue than a meeting that is not
liked by the `chosen leadership.'
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
eBay is forced to take off sale on eBay under the pressure of the
`chosen leadership.' Religion is more sensitive issue than writing
about the `supremacism' of a race.
`An anti-semitic book has been taken off sale on eBay after the
site's management was told of its inclusion by the JC - but hundreds
of items linked to race-hate can still be found. The book - Jewish
Supremacism, by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke - was
discovered by JC reader David Marsh after searching the site for
items linked to the word, Jewish. An eBay spokeswoman said that
offending item had been removed. But she added that sellers who
repeatedly breach eBay policies would be suspended, either for a
certain period or permanently, depending on the severity of the
offence. We have a team of people checking out items that should not
be listed. However, a search on the site for a leading skinhead punk
band turned up 215 items. eBay's policies forbid the use of racist
language and also the listing of items promoting hatred or racial
intolerance.' -- Rachel Fletcher and Mark Scodie, Jewish Chronicle,
October 22, 2004
Christians and Muslims should band together to force eBay to take
away all the material written against Christianity and Islam. It
should be in hundreds.
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, then why
an American boxing promoter is dragged to the court for making
alleged anti-Semitic remarks. And guess who is the boxing promoter?
He is world-known Don King. He claims that he has been fighting
racism and bigotry all his life. Religion is more sensitive issue
than alleged anti- Semitic remarks.
`American boxing promoter Don King has won the latest round in his
long-running fight to clear his name against allegations of
anti-Semitism. Judd Burstein - the American Jewish lawyer who made
the allegation - failed this week in a second attempt to have the
case move from the High Court in London to a U.S. court. The Court of
Appeal upheld the decision made by a judge in January. Mr. Burstein
now must either lodge a defence on the action or apologize.' -- Leon
Symons, Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
protest against a College yearbook for anti-Semitic remarks? Religion
is more sensitive issue than anti-Semitic remarks in a college
yearbook.
`Jewish Council for Racial Equality director Dr Edie Friedman has
called for more anti-racism education in schools in light of the
furore over a Winchester College yearbook which included anti-Semitic
and other racist remarks. In the un official annual publications, a
Jewish boy was referred to as `Yeider,' `Jew' and `lesser Being' by
other pupils. The head-teacher at the L22, 000 a-year boys' school,
Tommy Cookson, condemned the comments, stressing that no
discrimination of any sort is tolerated. As soon as the offending
passages came to the attention of the school, we made every effort to
seize all copies, he said.' -- Gaby Wine, Jewish Chronicle, October
22, 2004)
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
in France legal actions are recommended for radical anti-Zionists?
Religion is more sensitive issue than anti-Zionism.
`A French government report this week attacked radical anti-Zionists,
saying they were anti-Semite by proxy, and suggested that
anti-Semitism and racism presented a real threat to French democracy.
In a 70-page document presented to Interior Minister Dominique de
Villepin on Tuesday, the report's author, Jean Christophe Rupin,
called for increased legal action to fight anti-Semitism in Schools.
The report also proposed creating a national monitoring service to
compile details and statistics on anti-Semitism and racism. Mr. Rupin
also suggested combating radical anti-Zionists who were anti-Semitic
by proxy by passing a law, which would make comparison between Israel
and apartheid or Nazism illegal. The report was welcomed by Jewish
Organization.' -- Philip Carmel, Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004
Forget about French proposed measures to punish anti-Semite, note
what message this country of `free speech.' is sending throughout the
world. Bush `our president' has singed Global Anti-Semitism Review
Act of 2004.
`On October 16, President Bush signed the `Global Anti-Semitism
Review Act of 2004 (S.2292) into law ... The bill requires the DOS to
submit a one-time report on acts of anti-Semitism around the world no
later than November 15. The report include a description of act of
violence, including physical violence, against Jews and Jewish
communities, and the responses of the governments where the acts of
violence occurred, as well as the action taken by those governments
to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the religious
freedom of Jewish people. The report also must describe efforts by
such governments to promote anti-bias and tolerance education.
Additionally, the report will include instances of propaganda in
government and nongovernmental media that attempt to justify or
promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Jews.
Further, due to amendments by the House, the legislation creates an
office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism within the DOS that will
be headed by a Special Envoy and will be charged with responsibility
for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism in foreign countries as
well as coordinating and assisting in the preparation of the annual
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the annual Report on
International Religious Freedom. The Secretary of State is required
to include a description of acts of violence annually as part of the
annual Report on International Religious Freedom and the annual
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued more than 180 days
after enactment. The description would mirror that contained in the
November 15, report.' -- Interpreter Releases, October 25, 2004)
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
it needs the protective umbrella of U.S. government to silence those
voices how dare to expose its worldwide domination.
Why President Bush does not include in the annual report Jewish state
where missionaries are treated like enemies and hatred is spread
against them.
`We Jews have always believed that there is no price you can put on a
Jewish soul. But that belief is being tested in Israel, where there
is an urgent need to combat thousands of missionaries backed by tens
of millions of dollars in international funding. At Yad L'Achim we
work around the clock to bring Jews back from Christianity, Islam,
and the religions of the East. We are rescuing those who have joined
cults and have been brainwashed against their own people. And once
they return and are beginning the long road to recovery, we teach
them what real Judaism is all about. Your support will make a
difference in Yad L'Achim's fight to keep Israel Jewish.' -- How Much
is a Jewish Life Worth. Yad L'Achim pamphlet distributed by Jewish
newspapers)
Why `our' President Bush does not include in the annual report the
Jewish state where Christian leadership and Christians are spitted
upon by the `religious' students.
`It has been Jerusalem's dirty little secret for decades: Orthodox
yeshiva students and other Jewish residents vandalizing churches and
spitting on Christian clergyman as they walk along the narrow,
ancient stone street of the Old City. Now, however, following a
highly publicized fracas last week between a yeshiva student and the
archbishop of Jerusalem's Armenian Church, the issue is generating
unprecedented media attention in Israel. The fight started after a
yeshiva student at the respected Har Hamor Yeshiva spat on Archbishop
Nourhan Manougian during a Christian hold procession in the Old
City.' -- Eric J. Greenberg, Forward, October 22, 2004
Are these religious students alone in this spitting tradition? No.
American `religious' students travels to Israel to join their
spitting brothers.
`The controversy comes as the Israel government and Diaspora Jewish
organizations have been viewed for this article suggested that the
abusive practices were more common in the ultra-Orthodox or Haredi
community, which is characterized by greater insularity. But sources
told the Forward that the practice has recently been picked up by
other segment of the Orthodox world, including visiting American
yeshiva students.' -- Eric J. Greenberg, Forward, October 22, 2004
Is only the Armenian clergy the target of the spiting tradition? No.
It is not alone.
`This is not happening only to the Armenian clergy but also to
Catholics, Syrians, Romanians and Greek Orthodox.' -- Eric J.
Greenberg, Forward, October 22, 2004)
The simple answer is there is one standard for the `chosen
leadership' and there is another standard for the rest of the world.
President Bush cannot establish a center in the State Department that
will monitor anti-Christianity and anti-Islam activities by the
`chosen leadership.' If he does, he will be a political corpse within
seconds.
The above quoted excerpts prove so many facts. Some of them are: The
common enemy of Americans and the Muslims gets whatever it wants.
Second, common enemy has the power to silence any voice that dare to
challenge its domination over the entire world. Third, it knows no
limits in its hate-campaign. It does not spare even religions.
As the Muslims leadership is concerned, it can quote these excerpts
when they are cornered by the talking heads of the electronic media
for spreading hate.
Why the common enemy of Christian and Muslims wants an open war
between them? It is a topic that needs an in-depth analysis. Remember
one hint - `dual containment.' If Christians and Muslim cut each
other throat, who will gain?
Another point. In the common enemy's history, there is more hate
against Christianity and Christians than Islam and Muslims? It is for
the Christians and Muslims to unearth it and to show the real face of
the common enemy to prove that it wants to destroy Christian and
Muslims world by `supporting' one against the other -dual
containment.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/11486/
Nov 18 2004
Jewish Leadership Fuels Open War
by Jafar Syed
"Why the common enemy of Christian and Muslims wants an open war
between them? It is a topic that needs an in-depth analysis. Remember
one hint - `dual containment.' If Christians and Muslim cut each
other throat, who will gain?"
`Koran' is a Mein Kampf of war."
-- Winston Churchill
`Koran' is a deadly doctrine."
-- Fouad Ajami, John Hpokins University
Anti-American and Anti-Muslim forces have been pursuing a two-pronged
strategy to wide the gulf between America and the Muslim World. They
are prompting the American leadership to declare an open war against
the entire Muslim World. To justify this war, they are painting the
Muslim World as the No. 1 enemy of America. By pretending to side
with America in this `terror war,' these anti-American and
anti-Muslim forces give the impression that they are the most
patriotic segment of American society. In reality, they are the No. 1
enemy of America. Because in this `terror war,' there will be no
winner. American Century will be buried alongside the destroyed
Muslim World. This is what they want. Why? To be discussed later.
There is a community of interests between the anti-American and
anti-Muslim forces and the anti- American and anti-Muslim media. So
it is not surprising that the that the anti-American and anti-Muslim
media does not feel any reservation when it fans hate between America
and the Muslim World. It does not feel any reservation in spreading
highly toxic opinions and statements.
Anti-America and anti-Muslim forces are not happy with the present
conduct of `terror war.' They are not even happy with the slogans
under which this `terror war' is waged. In their view, `terror war'
under the slogans of axis of evil, international terrorism, and
militant Islam do not define the enemy correctly. They demand from
the Bush administration to confess and declare that this war is a
clash of civilization.
`Impelled by 9/11, President George W. Bush told the American people,
we are at war, at war with an axis of evil. Mr. Bush defined the
enemy as international terrorism. Given this amorphous enemy,
America's war aims are equally amorphous. However, since the recent
9/11 commission, Mr. Bush has defined the enemy as militant Islam - a
tautology made current by Daniel Pipes. Unfortunately, the war
symbolized by 9/11 is even more monumental: it is nothing less than a
clash of civilization as eminent scholars like Bernard Lewis and
Samuel Huntington have shown, and, in the case of Islam, a
civilization animated by a world religion.' -- Professor Paul
Eidelber, The Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
These anti-American and anti-Muslims forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that this militant Islam is
real Islam. Confess and declare that `Koran' is a `deadly doctrine.'
Confess and declare, `Koran is the Mein Kampf of war.'
`If American war aims are to be sound, Washington policy-makers must
understand that `militant Islam' is Islam pure and simple. The heart
of Islam is the Koran, which the renowned Fauad Ajami of John Hpokins
University refers to as a `deadly doctrine,' and which Winston
Churchill describes as the Mein Kampf of War. America and Islam are
indeed engaged in a clash of civilization, which virtually every
Muslim writer would admit.' -- Professor Paul Eidelber, The Jewish
Press Magazine, 10.22.04).
These anti-American and anti-Muslims forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that Muslim `moderates' are as
deadly as `the fundamentalist' are and they are also irrelevant in
the Muslim World.
`To compound the confusion, pundits focus the hopes of Americans on
Muslim `moderates,' as if this minute fraction is strategically
relevant in Islam's global war against `infidels.' The fact that
Muslim `moderates' advocate the destruction of Israel, America's only
reliable ally in the Middle East, should caution us about the depth
or reliability of their moderation.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The
Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
These anti-American and anti-Muslims forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that the religion of 1.2
billion Muslim is evil. Confess and declare that Muslims do not
believe that anything is common in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
`The conflict between liberal democracy and Nazism was a conflict
between good and evil. The U.S. is loath to refer to its conflict
with Islam in such terms. No one can feel comfortable calling the
religion of 1.2 billion people `evil.' Islam is commonly regarded as
a monotheistic faith having much in common with Judaism and
Christianity. This is NOT the way adherents of the Koran regarded
Judaism and Christianity!' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The Jewish
Press Magazine, 10.22.04)
These anti-American and anti-Muslim forces demand from Bush
administration to confess and declare that the Islamic Jihad is the
root cause of `terror.' Confess and declare that U.S. main objective
is to eliminate the murderous ethos of Islamic Jihad. Confess and
declare that Jihad is evil. Confess and declare that Islam is an
enemy of peace and civilized society.
`To formulate war aims appropriate to Islam, the U.S. must identify
the root cause of the conflict, Islam's Jihadic ethos - its bellicose
and contemptuous hatred of non-Muslim. It must be the remitting
objective of the U.S. to eliminate or radically alter this murderous
ethos. Jihadism must be condemned as evil, and so long Islam
propagates this ethos, Islam must be denounced as the enemy of peace
and of civilized society.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The Jewish
Press Magazine, 10.22.04
Professor Paul Eidelberg also recommends a course of action, which
the America should adopt.
`The U.S. should issue a declaratory policy having the following
elements: (1) The U.S. will regard as a belligerent any Islamic
states that support or harbors terrorists. (2) The U.S. will regard
any Islamic state that encourages its people to hate and kill
non-Muslims as racist, and will take action to have that state banned
from the United States. (3) The U.S. will proclaim that the bellicose
concept of Jihad contradicts the UN Charter as well as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which prescribes `tolerance and
friendship among all nations, racial, or religious groups.'
Accordingly, the U.S. will regard public renunciation of Jihad as the
litmus test of whether a Muslim state is sincerely committed to peace
and worthy of diplomatic relations.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The
Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
Professor Paul Eidleberg blames the Bush administration for avoiding
the right conclusions, which are set by Professor. This is the reason
there is a confusion among the Americans about the war in Iraq.
`The Bush administration avoids this conclusion, which is why it has
failed to formulate, with any precision, America's war aims.
Americans are therefore confused. They are divided over the war in
Iraq and about U.S. policy in the Middle East. The world's only
superpower flounders, intellectually and militarily unprepared to
confront its ill-defined, ubiquitous enemy.' -- Professor Paul
Eidelberg, The Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22. 04
Professor Paul Eidleberg also advises the Bush administration to
forget `democratization' of the Muslim World.
`The war aims of the United States should not include wholesale
democratization of Islamdom - an impractical and, in many countries,
an undesirable objective. In such countries, constitutionally
monarchy is preferable. The political objective is to rid Islam of
tyranny. The moral objective is to rid Islam of its jihadic ethos. In
pursuing these objectives, the U.S. will require the cooperation of
other nations. Such cooperation will be more forthcoming if American
war aims are clearly articulated, tenaciously pursued, with
consistency and more integrity.' -- Professor Paul Eidelberg, The
Jewish Press Magazine, 10.22.04
Paul Eidelberg chided his own fellow-traveler, anti-America and
anti-Muslim World, Mr. Pipe for separating `militant Islam' from
`real Islam.' For Prof. Eidelberg both are the same. He reminded Mr.
Pipe what he himself perceived in his earlier venomous spit.
`However, much institutions, attitudes, and customs have changed, the
Muslim approach to politics derives from invariant premises of the
religion and from fundamental theme established more than a
millennium ago.' -- In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power
quoted by Prof. Eidelberg, The Jewish Magazine, October 22, 2004)
Prof. Eidelberg also warns the Americans that this `terror war' will
end in the destruction of one of the `warring party' as happened in
Second World War.
`The current clash of civilization will eventually result in the
ascendancy of one and the decline of the other, as was the case in
the less encompassing conflict between liberal democracy and Nazi
Germany - a conflict that did not involve a world religion. But it is
precisely because Islam is a world religion that the U.S., the
champion of tolerance and pluralism, finds it so difficult to
identify its enemy.' -- Prof. Eidelberg, The Jewish Magazine, October
22, 2004).
Prof. Eidelberg is not alone in this incessant hate campaign to widen
the gulf between America and the Muslim World. All common enemies of
America and the Muslim World want an open war between the two. These
common enemies are worried that American leadership might not open a
new front against the Muslim World after the occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Read what the anti- Americans anti-Muslims
Forward suggests to the Bush administration in its first weekly
publications after Nov. 2, 2004. Destroy and occupy Iran - this is
the first message from the Forward.
`Fresh off of victory, President Bush will face a major test in the
coming weeks on the multilateral approach he has adopted toward
Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Even as Washington is
backing European efforts to pressure Tehran, the newly re-elected
president is looking to the United Nations Security Council to pick
up the lead on thwarting Iranian Nuclear aspiration.' -- Marc
Perelman, Forward, November 5, 2004)
The caption of the article is `Re-elect Bush Faces Benchmark Test On
Iranian Nukes Policy. Multilateral Approach at Stake)
Professor Louis Rene Beres, professor of International Law,
Department of political science, Purdue University, is suggesting
something else.
`International law is not a suicide pact. As Iranian nuclearization
heats up to a point of no return, Israel's leaders will soon have to
make vitally important decisions on launching defensive first
strikes. Faced with an existentially hostile regime in Tehran, these
leaders cannot now be expected to simply sit back and wait for the
regime to deploy atomic weapons. Less than half the size of Lake
Michigan, Israel's `wiggle room' in strategic survival matters is
profoundly limited.' -- The Jewish Press Magazine, October 22, 2004)
The title of the article is `Israel, Iran and Preemptive Attack
Striking First Under International Law.'
Prof. Beres does not give Iran the same right of preemptive attack as
he gives `wiggle room' state called Jewish state. Perhaps the right
of preemptive attack is `divine right' given only to the `chosen
leadership'
Second, Prof. Beres is sending a clear message to the re-elect Bush.
If you don't do it, Israel will.
Besides Iran, anti-American and anti-Muslim agenda setter Prof. Beres
is not happy with the Bush administration and Sen. Kerry for not
declaring an open war against Islam.
`Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry addressed an absolutely key
issues of current American foreign policy in the opening debate. Are
we now involved in a largely operational struggle against very
particular terror group and individuals, or -rather - are we
embroiled in something much larger? Should we now be focusing on
political, military and logistical issues (the position of both
candidates) or upon the much wider religious and cultural context
from which our principal terror enemies are spawned?" -- Prof. Louis
Rene Beres, The Jewish Press Magazine, October 15, 2002.
The title of the article is `After the first great debate: a war on
terror or a clash of civilization? This crucial point was missed in
the first presidential debate.'
Prof. Beres reminds the U.S. leadership that its `political
correctness' has political consequences. It should stop playing soft
balls. It should confess and declare that Islam is against all major
`religions' of the world, including Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism.
`The answers are important, as they will determine what security
measures we choose to adopt. And, if we can finally ignore the
constraints imposed by considerations of political correctness, these
answers are plain and incontestable. The roots of current and
still-impending anti-American terror lie deeply embedded in
civilizational hostility, in a partial but widespread Arab/Islamic
hatred for Western values and post-Enlightenment modernity. This
constructed and codified hatred extends to other major religions,
primarily Judaism, but also to certain parts of Christianity,
Hinduism, and Buddhism.' -- Prof. Beres, The Jewish Press Magazine,
October 15, 2004)
Prof. Beres reminds the Americans and the Europeans that they should
awake up to the `gathering threats' of mass killings with
unconventional weapons. Prof. wants the Bush administration to
confess and declare that the `terror war' is `authentic clash of
civilization.'
`The unvarnished truth of the terrorist threat to the United States
and the West remains widely misunderstood. We face suicidal mass
killings with unconventional weapons in the future not because there
exists a small number of pathological terrorists murderers, but
because we are embroiled - however unwittingly - in an authentic
clash of civilization. While we all wish it weren't so, wishing will
get us nowhere. Our only hope is to acknowledge the relentlessly
bitter source of existential danger, and proceed to fight the real
war on terror from there.' -- Prof. Beres, The Jewish Press Magazine,
October 15, 2004)
Note these anti-Americans and anti-Muslims forces do not target only
the Muslim World. Nobody on this earth is save from their
demonization - including the United States.
`The dissolution of the Jewish state has been the goal of the members
of the so-called `quartet,' the anti-Israel U.S. State Department,
the anti-Semitic E.U. (European Union), the hostile U.N. (United
Nations) and Russia, whose history of anti-Jewish pogroms are
legendry." -- Emanuel Winston, Middle East Analyst and Commentator,
The Jewish Press Magazine, October 22, 2004.
The world is told again and again that America is `blessed' with
`freedom of speech'. It is emphasized that `freedom of speech' should
be the norm of the world. Then why the only `chosen leadership' is
privileged to exercise the right of speech right? Then why anybody in
the entire world is not free to exercise this right by criticizing
the outrageous acts of this `chosen leadership?' Then why the `chosen
leadership' is free to demonize the religion of a community but
National Front MEP Bruno Collnisch is not free to question `gas
chambers' existence.
`I am not questioning the existence of concentration camps ... but on
the numbers of deaths, historians can discuss it. As to whether gas
chambers existed, that's up to the historian to determine.' -- Philip
Carmel, Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004.
What price this French has to pay for these alleged remarks, watch
and see. He is disputing only a happening. Religion is a more
sensitive issue than a happening.
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, then why
Jewish donors are threatening the Duke University in North Carolina
to face the music. Its alleged crime is:
"A major US university is coming under pressure from some Jewish
donors for allowing a pro-Palestinian conference that urged
divestment from Israel over its alleged apartheid policies. The
weekend conference, at Duke University in North Carolina, also heard
calls for an end to Israel as a Jewish state.' -- Janine Zacharia,
Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004.
The Duke administration is running for a shelter and is begging for
mercy.
`The Duke administration said it was allowing the conference to take
place as part of its commitments to free speech.' -- Janine Zacharia,
Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004)
What price the Duke university has to pay for allowing the
student-run Palestine Solidarity Movement to have its meeting? Watch
and see. If the chosen leadership is free to patronize anti-Christian
movies like `last temptation' and anti-Muslim books like `Satanic
Versus,' then why Duke University cannot permit students to arrange a
meeting. Religions is more sensitive issue than a meeting that is not
liked by the `chosen leadership.'
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
eBay is forced to take off sale on eBay under the pressure of the
`chosen leadership.' Religion is more sensitive issue than writing
about the `supremacism' of a race.
`An anti-semitic book has been taken off sale on eBay after the
site's management was told of its inclusion by the JC - but hundreds
of items linked to race-hate can still be found. The book - Jewish
Supremacism, by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke - was
discovered by JC reader David Marsh after searching the site for
items linked to the word, Jewish. An eBay spokeswoman said that
offending item had been removed. But she added that sellers who
repeatedly breach eBay policies would be suspended, either for a
certain period or permanently, depending on the severity of the
offence. We have a team of people checking out items that should not
be listed. However, a search on the site for a leading skinhead punk
band turned up 215 items. eBay's policies forbid the use of racist
language and also the listing of items promoting hatred or racial
intolerance.' -- Rachel Fletcher and Mark Scodie, Jewish Chronicle,
October 22, 2004
Christians and Muslims should band together to force eBay to take
away all the material written against Christianity and Islam. It
should be in hundreds.
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, then why
an American boxing promoter is dragged to the court for making
alleged anti-Semitic remarks. And guess who is the boxing promoter?
He is world-known Don King. He claims that he has been fighting
racism and bigotry all his life. Religion is more sensitive issue
than alleged anti- Semitic remarks.
`American boxing promoter Don King has won the latest round in his
long-running fight to clear his name against allegations of
anti-Semitism. Judd Burstein - the American Jewish lawyer who made
the allegation - failed this week in a second attempt to have the
case move from the High Court in London to a U.S. court. The Court of
Appeal upheld the decision made by a judge in January. Mr. Burstein
now must either lodge a defence on the action or apologize.' -- Leon
Symons, Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
protest against a College yearbook for anti-Semitic remarks? Religion
is more sensitive issue than anti-Semitic remarks in a college
yearbook.
`Jewish Council for Racial Equality director Dr Edie Friedman has
called for more anti-racism education in schools in light of the
furore over a Winchester College yearbook which included anti-Semitic
and other racist remarks. In the un official annual publications, a
Jewish boy was referred to as `Yeider,' `Jew' and `lesser Being' by
other pupils. The head-teacher at the L22, 000 a-year boys' school,
Tommy Cookson, condemned the comments, stressing that no
discrimination of any sort is tolerated. As soon as the offending
passages came to the attention of the school, we made every effort to
seize all copies, he said.' -- Gaby Wine, Jewish Chronicle, October
22, 2004)
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
in France legal actions are recommended for radical anti-Zionists?
Religion is more sensitive issue than anti-Zionism.
`A French government report this week attacked radical anti-Zionists,
saying they were anti-Semite by proxy, and suggested that
anti-Semitism and racism presented a real threat to French democracy.
In a 70-page document presented to Interior Minister Dominique de
Villepin on Tuesday, the report's author, Jean Christophe Rupin,
called for increased legal action to fight anti-Semitism in Schools.
The report also proposed creating a national monitoring service to
compile details and statistics on anti-Semitism and racism. Mr. Rupin
also suggested combating radical anti-Zionists who were anti-Semitic
by proxy by passing a law, which would make comparison between Israel
and apartheid or Nazism illegal. The report was welcomed by Jewish
Organization.' -- Philip Carmel, Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2004
Forget about French proposed measures to punish anti-Semite, note
what message this country of `free speech.' is sending throughout the
world. Bush `our president' has singed Global Anti-Semitism Review
Act of 2004.
`On October 16, President Bush signed the `Global Anti-Semitism
Review Act of 2004 (S.2292) into law ... The bill requires the DOS to
submit a one-time report on acts of anti-Semitism around the world no
later than November 15. The report include a description of act of
violence, including physical violence, against Jews and Jewish
communities, and the responses of the governments where the acts of
violence occurred, as well as the action taken by those governments
to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the religious
freedom of Jewish people. The report also must describe efforts by
such governments to promote anti-bias and tolerance education.
Additionally, the report will include instances of propaganda in
government and nongovernmental media that attempt to justify or
promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Jews.
Further, due to amendments by the House, the legislation creates an
office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism within the DOS that will
be headed by a Special Envoy and will be charged with responsibility
for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism in foreign countries as
well as coordinating and assisting in the preparation of the annual
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the annual Report on
International Religious Freedom. The Secretary of State is required
to include a description of acts of violence annually as part of the
annual Report on International Religious Freedom and the annual
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued more than 180 days
after enactment. The description would mirror that contained in the
November 15, report.' -- Interpreter Releases, October 25, 2004)
If the `chosen leadership' is free to demonize a religion, why then
it needs the protective umbrella of U.S. government to silence those
voices how dare to expose its worldwide domination.
Why President Bush does not include in the annual report Jewish state
where missionaries are treated like enemies and hatred is spread
against them.
`We Jews have always believed that there is no price you can put on a
Jewish soul. But that belief is being tested in Israel, where there
is an urgent need to combat thousands of missionaries backed by tens
of millions of dollars in international funding. At Yad L'Achim we
work around the clock to bring Jews back from Christianity, Islam,
and the religions of the East. We are rescuing those who have joined
cults and have been brainwashed against their own people. And once
they return and are beginning the long road to recovery, we teach
them what real Judaism is all about. Your support will make a
difference in Yad L'Achim's fight to keep Israel Jewish.' -- How Much
is a Jewish Life Worth. Yad L'Achim pamphlet distributed by Jewish
newspapers)
Why `our' President Bush does not include in the annual report the
Jewish state where Christian leadership and Christians are spitted
upon by the `religious' students.
`It has been Jerusalem's dirty little secret for decades: Orthodox
yeshiva students and other Jewish residents vandalizing churches and
spitting on Christian clergyman as they walk along the narrow,
ancient stone street of the Old City. Now, however, following a
highly publicized fracas last week between a yeshiva student and the
archbishop of Jerusalem's Armenian Church, the issue is generating
unprecedented media attention in Israel. The fight started after a
yeshiva student at the respected Har Hamor Yeshiva spat on Archbishop
Nourhan Manougian during a Christian hold procession in the Old
City.' -- Eric J. Greenberg, Forward, October 22, 2004
Are these religious students alone in this spitting tradition? No.
American `religious' students travels to Israel to join their
spitting brothers.
`The controversy comes as the Israel government and Diaspora Jewish
organizations have been viewed for this article suggested that the
abusive practices were more common in the ultra-Orthodox or Haredi
community, which is characterized by greater insularity. But sources
told the Forward that the practice has recently been picked up by
other segment of the Orthodox world, including visiting American
yeshiva students.' -- Eric J. Greenberg, Forward, October 22, 2004
Is only the Armenian clergy the target of the spiting tradition? No.
It is not alone.
`This is not happening only to the Armenian clergy but also to
Catholics, Syrians, Romanians and Greek Orthodox.' -- Eric J.
Greenberg, Forward, October 22, 2004)
The simple answer is there is one standard for the `chosen
leadership' and there is another standard for the rest of the world.
President Bush cannot establish a center in the State Department that
will monitor anti-Christianity and anti-Islam activities by the
`chosen leadership.' If he does, he will be a political corpse within
seconds.
The above quoted excerpts prove so many facts. Some of them are: The
common enemy of Americans and the Muslims gets whatever it wants.
Second, common enemy has the power to silence any voice that dare to
challenge its domination over the entire world. Third, it knows no
limits in its hate-campaign. It does not spare even religions.
As the Muslims leadership is concerned, it can quote these excerpts
when they are cornered by the talking heads of the electronic media
for spreading hate.
Why the common enemy of Christian and Muslims wants an open war
between them? It is a topic that needs an in-depth analysis. Remember
one hint - `dual containment.' If Christians and Muslim cut each
other throat, who will gain?
Another point. In the common enemy's history, there is more hate
against Christianity and Christians than Islam and Muslims? It is for
the Christians and Muslims to unearth it and to show the real face of
the common enemy to prove that it wants to destroy Christian and
Muslims world by `supporting' one against the other -dual
containment.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/11486/