- Ma'an: Haniyeh says PA "waging war against Islam"
- Shades of moderation
- The new york times anti-israel tag team
Posted: 17 Aug 2010 06:46 PM PDT
Palestinians vs. Post-Palestinians:
Gaza government Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused the Palestinian Authority on Monday evening of waging a war against religion and Islam.Those sound like fighting words. Is Hamas emboldened by the recent assertiveness of Iran and Hizbullah? When the show-down comes between the PA and Hamas, I'm betting on Hamas.
Crossposted on Judeopundit
Posted: 17 Aug 2010 05:31 AM PDT
Two weeks ago Jeffrey Goldberg wrote, If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative (via memeorandum):
This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims.
Goldberg insists that since Imam Rauf is a moderate, Bin Laden would fear him. Thus by showing understanding to Rauf, we are helping to fight Bin Laden.
The problem is that however slickly Imam Rauf presents himself he has a troubling history. Yes he talks about interfaith cooperation but he somehow can't bring himself to condemn Hamas.
How do you know someone really isn't a "moderate" on the question of Islamic radicalism? When he endorses a double standard for terrorism -- appearing to condemn it when it is directed against Americans, refusing to condemn it when directed against Israelis.
Or as Charles Krauthammer noted the other day Imam Rauf told Ed Bradley of "60 Minutes" that the United States was an accessory to the terror of 9/11.
A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.
But if an Islamist terror organization approves this mosque doesn't that refute the idea that Bin Laden would seek to destroy it. Yes, I know that the mosque's developers say that Hamas doesn't speak for them. But if you are going to argue that extremists would oppose the mosque and then they actually endorse it, it should be obvious that extremists do not see it as a threat.
One other reason I doubt Imam Rauf's moderation is the name of his initiative. As I blogged last week, Cordoba doesn't represent peaceful coexistence. At least it doesn't represent tolerance in any 21st century understanding of the word. Jennifer Rubin yesterday noted Michael Lame's observation:
The idea of an Andalusian golden age, when Christians and Jews lived contentedly under Muslim rule, has become a fixture of Western historical thinking over the last hundred years. But is it true?
So in addition to Imam Rauf's failure to condemn extremism, the name of his institute hardly evokes the toleration he says it does.
Judith Apter Klinghoffer's approach is correct.
The most apt comparison between the debate surrounding the planned ground zero mosque is with the one which surrounded the planned Nazi marches in Skokie, a Chicago suburb inhabited by a large number of Jewish holocaust survivors. The US constitution guarantees the right of American Muslims to disregard the pain they will cause the victims of the Islamist terrorist attack on 9/11 just as the constitution guaranteed American Nazis the right to disregard the pain of the victims of the Nazi holocaust.
Legally, there may be nothing we can do to stop the Islamic Center from being built but we certainly have every right to protest it as an affront to those killed and targeted on 9/11. Those who argue that protests against the mosque are somehow acting against freedom of religion, are saying that we must show toleration to a religion that doesn't tolerate others. If Imam Rauf's efforts are constitutionally protected surely too are those who oppose his plans. There is nothing un-American about protesting insensitivity.
Finally this is breaking mostly along partisan lines as Robert Avrech observes:
The Ground Zero Mosque is a stark political issue that divides Democrats from Republicans.
This scares Mark Halperin:
Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.
The ground zero mosque is a potent issue for many voters. Halperin isn't asking the Republicans to be noble. He's asking them to surrender.
Finally, will those defending Imam Rauf, defend Glenn Beck too?
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted: 17 Aug 2010 01:12 AM PDT
The New York Times saw fit to report on a former Israeli soldier who posted tasteless pictures from her army service on her Facebook page. Remember that these were the actions of a single individual, but the Times bureai chief, Ethan Bronner saw fit to use this villify Israeli society as a whole.
Generally, acts done while in military service can be prosecuted, but a spokesman said that since Ms. Abergil had been discharged last year, legal action remained unclear. The Public Committee Against Torture, an Israeli group, said that abusive behavior by soldiers was the norm at West Bank checkpoints and at detention centers.
Does the Public Committee against Torture have any proof that "abusive behavior ... was the norm?" None that Bronner mentions, but the allegation, which slanders Israeli society is presented with no rebuttal as if it is fact.
Not leaving bad enough alone, the Time blogger Robert Mackey, decided to show everyone how awful Israel is by reproducing the pictures! This allows Mackey to fabricate an Abu Graib comparison.
What was Isabel Kershner doing that prevented her from joining in the Israel bash-fest?
But as My Right Word points out:
And as the picture shows, she's just showing off and sitting near prisoners, off to the side.
So in order to smear Israel the Times employs two reporters to blow an isolated incident into an indictment of Israel society!
So what happens when a member of the government of Israel's peace partners expresses the need for "armed struggle" against Israel? The Times has no reporters to spare. So let me do their job for them.
Thanks to PMW for making this important bit of news available.
In an interview on official Palestinian Authority Television, Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub said: "At the [Sixth Fatah] Conference, we affirmed the struggle in all its forms, including resistance and the armed struggle... The [armed] struggle is a means, not an end. The [armed] struggle is related to our abilities... must cause pain to the occupation [Israel]; it must be connected to a political platform."
This isn't an immature individual who's showing off. This is a leader of the PA.
Furthermore, as Elder of Ziyon points out, the PA (not Hamas!) continues to build Mosques which often feature vicious antisemitic sermons. And the PA is telling its citizens to avoid Israeli hospitals.
So while the PA systematically influences its citizens to hate Israel, the New York Times doesn't care one whit about the PA's soul. But when a single Israeli misbehaves it becomes a reasons for the Times to break out its tag team to comment "more in sorrow than in anger" about the corruption of Israeli society.
This is a particularly noxious variation on Khaled Abu Toameh's double standard. Last week Thomas Friedman complained about destructive criticism of Israel; he really doesn't have to look too far if he wants to fight it.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Soccer Dad |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|