Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
JERUSALEM -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's grudging endorsement of Palestinian independence -- couched in layers of stifling conditions -- does not necessarily signal the hawk-to-moderate transformation that hard-line Israeli leaders before him have undergone.
This article was published as if it was a news story, but the very first sentence reveals it as a heavily biased opinion piece.
Netanyahu's major policy speech was as notable for what it did not say, as for what it did: No acceptance of previous peace strategies. No reference to any Muslim connection to the land. No talk of uprooting Jewish settlements to make room for a would-be Palestinian state.
Given that all previous peace strategies have been dismal failures, that should be considered a positive aspect, but the writer clearly implies it is a negative.
And he pointedly avoided mentioning an Arab peace initiative that offers to trade normalized ties with the entire Arab world for a complete Israeli withdrawal from lands captured in 1967, a demand Israel rejects.
The writer omits any reference to other stifling conditions in the so-called "Arab peace initiative," which was presented as an ultimatum, such as the redivision of the Israeli capital, the acceptance by Israel of the immigration of millions of hostile Palestinian Arabs and the creation of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees by forcing them out of their homes in the disputed territories.
Palestinians called Netanyahu's speech a nonstarter that will not serve as a basis for talks, and Arab leaders rejected it as disappointing and not conducive to peace.
Arab leaders have never responded positively to any Israeli concession.
Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people -- essentially giving up any right of return for Palestinian refugees -- "scuttles the chances for peace," Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Monday.
That says more about Mubarak, who continues to refuse to visit Israel, doing so only to attend the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, than about Netanyahu.
"The call to amend the Arab initiative and drop the right of return will not find anyone in Egypt or elsewhere to agree to it," the state-run MENA news agency quoted Mubarak as saying.
This is confirmation that the Arabs view their so-called "peace initiative" as an ultimatum rather than a peace proposal, which by its very nature would be subject to negotiation.
It's also unclear if Netanyahu uttered the words "Palestinian state" because he really believes in one, or because he is trying to get out of a tight spot with President Barack Obama.
Who cares? Does anyone criticize Mahmoud Abbas for not being a Zionist?
The European Union also called Netanyahu's endorsement a step in the right direction, but questioned his stance on other disputed peace issues such as Jewish settlements and Jerusalem's future status.
One might question the EU's lack of questioning of the Arab demands for the creation of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees by forcing them out of their homes in Judea and Samaria as well as their demand that Israel divide its own capital.
He demanded that Palestinians not only recognize Israel's right to exist, but to exist as a Jewish state -- another way of saying Palestinian refugees must give up their hopes of returning to lost homes inside Israel.
Most of those "Palestinian refugees" are not refugees, but descendants of refugees, never lived inside Israel and have no lost homes inside Israel. The youngest of those refugees are now 61 years old.
In truth, some of Netanyahu's conditions were not surprising or new.
This is an understatement. None of Netanyahu's conditions were either surprising or new and all fall within a consensus within not only Israel but the United States.
The fact that they recognize that reality but continue to refuse to publicly concede the obvious shows just how far the Palestinian Arabs are from being ready to live in peace with Israel.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
June 4, 2009-Cairo
“That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us…and he used truth as an underlying theme throughout his speech repeating it a half a dozen times. I guess what is one man’s truth is another man’s deception and if you didn’t know better you believed every point he made.
A person, including a President, can avoid the truth by intentionally misrepresenting facts and/or by omitting other points of information and by refusing to provide the necessary context for any given event, circumstance or situation. One does so in order to paint a particular word picture for the listeners. These techniques have misdirection and sleight of hand have been with us for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Mr. Obama’s speech was ostensibly for the Muslim world; yet, let us be perfectly clear it was designed for Western consumption as well. Listening to his speech you walk away thinking that the religion of Islam is monolithic-it is not and for almost its entire history has not been. He said he was “a student of history” and I question whose history he was taught? At best, it must have been either selective or “overstated” history as he failed to provide proper context and facts for most of what he said. He never differentiated among the divisions within Islam and many times grouped together all Muslims. Those who practice Islam know this fact and Mr. Obama knows this as well. However, he is counting on the general public not to know it and thus he can paint a picture of peace and tolerance. Notice he went out of his way to indicate that it was a “tiny minority” who were extremists indicating to an unknowing public that really we have nothing to worry about, the over 1 billion Muslims around the world are truly your friends. The most efficient manner to dispel the truth is to misrepresent the description of who individuals are and what they stand for. The next step in this strategy is you denigrate anyone who dares challenge of question your position. This is followed by nuisance lawsuits. All of this and more are occurring in the USA today.
To ensure that a population, ignorant of the facts, assumes that Islam has become a major part of your world is to speak as though certain facts are simply known. It is what I call the “everyone knows …” technique and if you are one who does not know, chances are you do not want to be identified as a “non-knower”. So, you accept the “facts” as delivered and depending upon who is giving you the data, you accept as “gospel” the information provided. Now, if the President of the USA is the agent of information, well…enough said!
The difficulty with this approach is profound. First, one who wants to manipulate, counts upon you being easily manipulated and does indeed with hold salient information. You are left alone to make your own decisions. Without complete and adequate information, one tends to make incorrect and improper assessments that can lead to poor judgments concluding with great liabilities for all.
Case in point: You are lead to believe that Islam has “exploded” in America-after all there is a mosque in “every state” and over 1200 mosques in the USA. Once again critical information was with held from the audience. Do you know who has funded and built these USA mosques? Yes, “Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80 percent have been built within the last 20 years – thanks in large part to Saudi money, according to Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam."1 "Saudi Arabia alone has spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere," Safa said.
To suggest that this has been an internal American movement is only sharing apart of the story and thus the President’s representation of a “large Muslim” religion in the USA is not only inflated but also misleading. King Fahd of Saudi pledged as much as $8 million to build a new mosque at the site of the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center, the large black mosque in South Central Los Angeles. Last year, Saudi's Islamic Development Bank committed an additional $295,000 for the construction of the Bilal Islamic Primary and Secondary School. Without this money and without the hundreds of imans Saudi Arabia has sent to the USA to convert specific populations to Islam, the religion would not have the numbers it does today.
The President spoke about truth but “forgot” to tell his audience some critical information. Not only has Saudi money built the mosques, sent imams to spread the word, it has also funded school curricula and created pro-Islam groups that move about the country ”teaching about the misconceptions” of Islam (Wahhabi ideology). However, the most disturbing information is “Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," Barsky said.”2 Contrary to what the President inferred last week, “"These [immigrants] were not interested in this [Wahhabi] ideology, and suddenly they have a Saudi imam coming in and telling them they're not praying properly and not practicing Shari'a [Islamic law] properly." This Saudi strategy was being carried out "all over the world, from America to Bangladesh," with the Saudis investing $70-80 billion in the endeavor over three decades.2
Were you told last week the following: “Barsky, who heads the AJC's Division on Middle East and International Terrorism and is the executive editor of Counterterrorism Watch, said this means that "the people now in control of teaching religion [to American Muslims] are extremists.” No, as a matter of fact you heard just the opposite.3
Numbers are used to persuade, educate and indoctrinate groups of people. If you are attempting to suggest that a particular group abounds a coutry, use inflated numbers-never mind they have never been validated. Remember, it is the messenger who creates the credibility, not the actual “facts.” A couple days before the speech, Obama’s “people” spoke about the 2-3 million USA Muslims. I think he must have received a call from CAIR because in his speech the number more than doubled-7 million he said (the number used by CAIR operatives)-just coincidental I am sure. How many Muslims live in the United States? Until now, basically, no one has had any idea. By law, the U.S. Census cannot ask questions about religion. Groups like The American Religious Identification Survey 2001, American Jewish Committee, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and The American Muslim Council (AMC) offer wide ranges of population variations.4 The numbers range from 2-8 million-quite a dispersion would you not say? The Muslim group reports more may indeed be correct, but are not supported by empirical data.
So, what number does Obama choose to use? That’s correct, an uncorroborated “guess estimate” as it supports his theme outlined in his speech. The technique is to throw a large number he thinks you will perceive as huge. He indicated earlier that the USA has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world (simply not true) and collectively these two statements only a couple days apart would lead most Americans to believe, “it must be so”.
Have you examined the numbers? If you use Obama’s uncorroborated figure, the Muslim population makes up but 2.6% of the population in the USA. If you use a research study’s numbers of around 2.5million, far less than .01% of the population is Muslim. Minimally Obama gravely exaggerated the numbers and drew erroneous conclusions that seemingly are driving policy decisions. However, given he is an intelligent man, not only his people tell us this on a regular basis, he has declared himself a student of history, I can only interpret his number use and conclusions are intentional and he is doing his best to mislead American citizens. If true, I find this shameful-how about you?
- World Net Daily, June 7, 2009
- Rettig, Haviv, “Saudis have radicalized 80% of US mosques, http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Saturday, June 6, 2009
It could not be otherwise.
Those Israel-haters are now hypocritically attacking "Doc's Talk, an excellent blog from PRIMER board member Don Morris.
One often hears neither side is complete right or completely wrong in any conflict and certainly Israel has made mistakes, but one would be hard put to find a conflict in which the right and wrong, the aggressor and the attacked are as clear as in the Arab-Israeli one.
From the very beginning, Israel has striven to end the conflict, to live in peace with its Arab neighbors, while its Arab enemies, including the Palestinian Arabs, have steadfastly refused any solution that didn't entail the elimination of Israel.
It is thus virtually impossible for anyone to take the Arab side in the conflict without being either ignorant or bigoted and morally bankrupt.
Similarly, any honest presentation of facts and history inevitably support Israel, it's virtually impossible to make an anti-Israel argument without resorting to lies, distortions and hypocrisy.
The Israel-haters routinely, hypocritically and falsely accuse Israel of since of which its enemies are guilty.
The Israel-haters routinely, hypocritically and falsely accuse supporters of Israel of the since of which they themselves are guilty.
The murder of innocent civilians lies at the heart of the strategies of both Hamas and the so-called "moderate" Fatah and is enshrined in the charters of both terror organizations, while Israel valiantly tries to avoid harming Arab civilians, yet members of the global anti-Israel conspiracy routinely, hypocritically and falsely accuse Israel of human rights abuses.
The Arab League has for six decades tried to starve Israelis to death with its boycott, while even while its own citizens have been under attack Israel has tried to provide for the welfare of the very people attacking it, yet members of the global anti-Israel conspiracy routinely, hypocritically and falsely accuse Israel of trying to starve the people living in Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority has made it a capital crime to sell land to a Jew and one of its primary demands is that all territory transferred to it be made judenrein, while Israel has long been the only country in the Middle East which allows citizenship for people of all races, creeds and national origins and gives all equal legal rights, yet members of the global anti-Israel conspiracy, including a former president of the United States, routinely, hypocritically and falsely accuse Israel of apartheid.
Israel-haters go to tremendous lengths to prevent Israel's supporters from presenting the facts, misusing poorly-crafted libel laws to bring suit against writers and journalists presenting obvious truths and violently demonstrating against speakers on college campuses, yet members of the global anti-Israel conspiracy, including a former president of the United States and professors associated with prestigious universities, routinely, hypocritically and falsely accuse Israel of preventing a free and honest debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In their hypocritical attack on free speech, the Israel-haters are on an organized campaign to censor Doc's Talk, taking advantage of a feature of Google's Blogger that depends on the integrity of the public.
When someone reads a blog entry on any Blogger blog, one is given the opportunity to ask Blogger to "flag" the blog.
When one tries to do so, one is presented with the following:
One of the hallmarks of Blogger is the importance of freedom of speech. Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content. We allow our users to create blogs, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages, nor do we censor them. However, Blogger has standards and policies in place to protect our users and the Blogger network, as well as to ensure that Blogger is complying with all national, state, international, and local laws.
Please select the type of violation that you'd like to report:
Defamation/Libel/Slander (Learn more.)
Spam (Learn more.)
Nudity (Learn more.)
Hate or violence (Learn more.)
I need to contact another user
Someone is posting my private information
I think someone else is using my account
As is obvious from reading its posts, none of those violations apply to Doc's Talk, but that hasn't stopped members of the global anti-Israel conspiracy from flagging Doc's Talk, lying about the alleged violations.
Blogger has now caved in to the pressure of the global anti-Israel consipacy and flagged Doc's Talk, despite the obvious fact that Doc's Talk complies completely with its standards.
One result is that Doc's Talk is now unavailable to people staying at the many United States hotels which block any blogs flagged by Blogger.
As I noted, hatred and bigotry have always been at the heart of the global anti-Israel conspiracy, of which lies, distortions and hypocrisy have always been staples.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Dear Mr. Negri:
It has come to my attention that The New English Review Symposium on "Understanding Jihad in Israel Europe and America" was scheduled to take place in your hotel. You somehow decided, after agreeing to their request, that freedom of speech in the US was no longer important.
I am sorry to inform you but the Muslims in this country will instill fear in all Americans because you refuse to say this is a free country. You allow free speech as long as it agrees with your agenda. There is no Sha'aria law here. In this country there is religious plurality. In other words, all religions have every right to practice their faith without infringing on other religions. By doing what you did, you gave in to the famous line that you would have a security problem. What a bunch of bologna.
Why did your hotel agree to allow this symposium to take place and suddenly you decided to shut it down? Don't look for all kinds of excuses.
How did you come up with this garbage that you were worried about the following: "health and safety reasons to protect employees and hotel guests?"
Health issues? Do the people who were taking part in this symposium have HIV or Swine Flu? Maybe your Muslim comrades threatened to burn down the hotel? A periodical stated, "Negri should stick to clean sheets, clean bathrooms and stay out of politics." Continuing, "we might add he should stay away from denial of free speech and an exchange of views under our First Amendment." If you want to fix the broken immigration system then do it and don't take it out on the basic right of free speech.
I promise you that there are many people, relatives, friends and business contacts, who won't be considering going near your hotel now. I'm so happy you chose the Jihadis over Americans. The symposium did take place at an undisclosed place. There were no health or security issues. I'm sure they called in the CDC to sterilize the place before the symposium began. Nashville must have brought in SWAT, CSI and the FBI to secure the area.
These comments and others will be published in the Nashville papers and in other papers throughout the US. Next time you might consider why the United States of America is such a great country.
Note: The periodical referred to is Israpundit.