While in some European countries, the muezzin call by loudspeaker is likewise (still) forbidden, the media are now attacking Israel and speaking of terrible “discriminations.” Die Tagesschau, for example, with its correspondent Sebastian Engelbrecht sees in the bill a “discrimination against Israel’s Arab citizens”:

Perhaps the muezzin in the Israeli-Arabic city Kafr Kassem will soon no longer give the call to prayer. Kafr Kassem lies only a few hundred meters away from the Jewish-Israeli city Rosh Ha’ayin near Tel Aviv. The noise from the prayer call carries over into Rosh Ha’ayin five times daily. But these conditions should soon come to an end. Prime Minister Netanyahu supports a corresponding bill that coalition partner “Our House Israel” intends to put through the Knesset. The 400 mosques in Israel should soon be forbidden from amplifying the call of the muezzin with a loudspeaker.

Knesset representative Anastassia Michaeli, of the rightwing populist party “Our House Israel” thinks hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens have suffered daily under the noise of the muezzin calls. Michaeli said on an Israeli television show: “That is not an action to stop mouths, rather, on the contrary, it is supposed to help many citizens out that have turned to me. We only wish to correct and change and find a middle path between the keeping of tradition and the necessity of protecting the environment. (…) At the moment, we are talking only about places of worship, and yes, absolutely – places of worship, that also includes churches.”

Even the ringing of bells will be forbidden

According to the law, the ringing of bells by churches in Arab areas will be forbidden in the future. Almost 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Muslim or Christian Arabs. Therefore, mosques and churches are as much a part of Israel as synagogues. But Mrs. Michaeli – and Prime Minister Netanyahu with her – believe religion should not encroach on the people’s quality of life.

Netanyahu bases his support for the bill with the argument that Israel, in this matter, must “not be more liberal than Europe.” The problem is exactly the same in Belgium and France, and there it is legitimate to ban the muezzin call by loudspeaker. Many people had complained to him because of the noise coming from the minarets, Netanyahu said in the Ministers’ Circle of his Likud Party.

Representative Michaeli is concerned for the health of the people in Israel. “When I heard how seriously people suffer from this, I met with some doctors, specialists, who told me what problems could arise when someone is subject to loud noise.”

Resistance against the bill

Within the Likud resistance is mounting against the intention of the coalition partner and the Prime Minister. Minister of Culture Limor Livnat and Minister of the Secret Service Dan Meridor reject the idea of actually forbidding the muezzin call. Meridor believes such a law is needless and would only lead to an escalation of tensions between Jews and Arabs.

The so-called muezzin law is one of many laws and bills of the Netanyahu government that effectively discriminate against Israel’s Arab citizens.

An important step. Israel has the right and the duty to protect its Jewish values from the Arabic outcry.

Posted on PI / Translation: Anders Denken

Abbas energetically rejected earlier suggestions in which Jews in Judea and Samaria could remain in their homes if these regions would fall under Palestinian rulership and at the same time invited all “Palestinian refugees” to return home. The part of the country that is still Israeli is to accept them. Israel, therefore, is to open its borders for Arabs while “Palestine” closes its borders for Jews. It hardly gets any clear than that!

(Hat tip: Wolfgang H. / Translation: Anders Denken)

The FAZ reports:

The Islamists governing in Gaza have apparently begun with a storm against the last bastions who still have not conformed to the violent seizure of power by Hamas in Summer 2007: Seculars, independents and above all the rest of the Fatah organization that ruled once upon a time in Gaza are a thorn in Hamas’ flesh.

So that the media couldn’t report anything hostile to the regime, not only were members of the competing party Fatah and “seculars” (a.k.a. infidels, dissident thinkers, non-Muslims, and even kuffar) persecuted, but journalists also gladly:

“The police often interrogate journalists a whole day long, threaten them, and sometimes they are also beaten. Out of fear, some think it advantageous to be silent or are careful with what they write,” reports Wafa editor Ajrami. Such harsh reactions happened, for example, after accusions of corruption against Hamas politicians.

Hamas appears to be especially hard on women. Besides the well-known wailing women faithful to the regime of all images, there appear to be insubordinate women who don’t want to wear head covering or who are, as ever, naughty enough to smoke a water pipe.

The security forces temporarily closed hotels and restaurants where smoking women were caught on their terraces. The new theme park “Crazy Water Park” also was not allowed to open for days because of this. In September, the greater part of the facility then went up in flames from an attack by hooded militants.

How, what, Water Park? Isn’t Gaza this so-called “open air prison” in which the people allegedly must die of thirst, as Amnesty asserted?

Pictures from Crazy Water Park (presumably built with European donations from the Bomber General Surplus Fund):

Those who think that it would be not as extremist with the Fatah in the Judean mountains, which are now called “West Jordan Land” under political correctness, are in error:

Similar things as in Gaza are also encountered by journalists and media in West Jordan Land that are suspicious of such sympathies. In West Jordan Land, for example, the Hamas network Al-Aqsa-TV is not allowed to transmit and work.

“The situation in Ramallah is even worse than in Gaza. Journalists who are allegedly in association with Hamas land in military courts there,” Fathi Sabbah says. He is the Gaza correspondent for the Arab newspaper “Al Hayat” that appears in London and had to suffer himself under the Hamas regime. In September, a good dozen Palestinian human rights organizations turned to the EU in concern without whose support the government in Ramallah couldn’t survive. The autonomic authorities have begin to “supress other political opinions and create an atmosphere of intimidation in the Palestinian community in order to turn it into a kind of police state,” notable organizations such as Al Haq and Al Mezan warn.

Furthermore, the enemy camps are in agreement in only two points: 1. Israel is to blame for everything, and 2. Islam is the religion of peace.

(Hat Tip: Islamischer Mehrtuerer / Translation: Anders Denken)

(From Ivan Denes / Translation: Anders Denken)

Considering this information, these rounds already begin to distinguish themselves from their predecessors: Before, Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush would have personally attempted, with the whole weight of their office, to steer the negotiations to a solid, positive result. Barack Obama, on the other hand, apparently already presumes failure in the event, and therefore, he has no intention of taking any direct, personal responsibility for it. In the small likelihood of a successful case, he will always take recognition for the profits, the and all the more so as, in the face of nearing congressional elections (in November), he has pressed someone into the beginning of direct negotiations. His deeply-sunk polling numbers have pushed him to this nearly hasty procedure. This has a greater importance, even more so in his somewhat amateurish vision of the Near and Middle East, than even Iran’s atomic arms buildup.

Not a really courageous politician; this president is, and especially not a trustworthy character. Somewhat more like a narrow-minded opportunist.

This round of negotiations, in particular, is almost pointless, and truly for a great number of reasons:

- There is no unified leadership that could repesent the future Palestinian nation based on a unified mandate. In the last elections, the fundamentalist Hamas (a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) won the elections; in the Gaza Strip, they revolted two years ago and seized power. The ruling Hamas government in Gaza rejects all negotiations with Israel, brands the participants of such negotiations as traitors, and itself declares already not to recognize the results of the negotiations.

- The mandate by President Mahmud Abbas expired in January 2009. He has stayed in office under pressure from the US government. New elections have already been delayed in light of the outlook that the results of the previous elections would be repeated, namely, a larger victory of Hamas over the Fatah of Mahmud Abbas which itself is corrupt throughout.

- The ruling Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayyad (put in place by Abbas under pressure from Washington), who appeared as an independent, won two percent of the votes, believe it or not.

- Both Mahmud Abbas and Salem Fayyad, have for weeks and months vehemently refused to participate in direct negotiations with Israel — until they were finally forced by the Americans with threats of cutting off the money supply that keeps their administration functioning. Because of this, they will be able to portray any results from the negotiations as a consequence of pressure and blackmail.

- Both the Americans and the Israelis have announced the negotiatiating round as being “without precondition”; Abbas and Fayyad have already stated that they will enter negotiations only with the extension of the settlement moratorium beyond its expiration at the end of September.

- Abbas and Fayyad, according to the Palestinian Constitution, had to obtain approval from the PLO Executive Committee for negotiations with Israel. The executive committee has 18 members, of which only nine showed up for the specially called session in Ramallah. The constitutionally minimum number for the passing of a resolution lies at twelve (two-third’s majority). Consequentially, Abbas and Fayyad — contrary to all Palestinian, European and American media reports — have no mandate for adhering to the alleged peace negotiations.

The independent Zurich campus blog reports:

One wouldn’t presume much malice behind the activity, “Morals and Ethics in Groups,” being carried out by the Psychological Instute of the University of Zurich. The docent Bettina Ryf, by means of the Mideast conflict, sets her aim on dealing with the subject. …

A compilation of articles from a German-Palestinian women’s association, a lobbying organization tha advocates national Arab-Muslim interests, serve as an introduction to the subject. We can’t deal with all the details of this propaganda work here. A few examples, however, should be enough:

“In its course (Israeli War for Independence 1947/48), the paramilitary Israeli units secured their own territory and large parts of the areas promised by the UN to the Arab state. Thus the intrusion of the Arab states the day after the founding of the State changed nothing. After its consolidation, the Jewish State eventually comprised 78% of the Palestinian region instead of the 56% called for by the UN Partition Resolution.”

As a whole, it needs to be said of this document, that it uses no scientific criteria and also doesn’t claim to be neutral: massacres and acts of violence against Jews before the founding of the State remain unmentioned, as also the more than one million Jewish refugees that have been driven from Arab lands and Iran. Most apparently, the document deals with cementing the the not so accurate fables from the rolls of Arab victims. Bettina Ryf is visibly attempting to spread this very lie of Arab-Muslim nationalism among her students. Is this really the level that can be expected from the University of Zurich?

Hardly! Even though the unfoundable horror stories about the Jews Israel have become socially acceptable again, they should not be allowed to be propagated as “science” among students.

» Contact the Psychological Institute of the University of Zurich at: rwidmer@sozpsy.uzh.ch

» Contact Bettina Ryf at: beryf@sozpsy.uzh.ch

(By Ralph S.)

Not so in Beirut, where they sell them at every corner and you literally cannot walk for more than two minutes before finding yourself in front of some US fast food-franchise. Some people like the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman see this development as the emergence of a global society that on the long run will usher into a new peaceful world order. Warming up to his theory, Friedman created the “Golden Arches Theory”, stating that no two countries which have McDonald’s franchises have ever gone to war with each other. But even before the ink was dry, the Kosovo crisis lead to a NATO air-campaign against Serbia, rendering the “Golden Arches Theory” meaningless.

The existence of a McDonald`s in Belgrade did not make the country more Western, just as the existence of Dunkin Doughnuts in Tel Aviv and Beirut did not prevent the war of 2006. The idea that equal consumption behavior will lead to equal political behavior is as tempting as it is flawed. It is a superficial deception that seems to absolve many contemporary observers and columnists to look deeper into the issues at stake.

If you fly from New York to London and then continue to Berlin you will again have the Beirut experience: The same pop music, the same jeans, the same Cheeseburgers. And yet Europe might be only second to the Arab World when it comes to anti-Americanism. The American model of “Imperialism” (for the lack of a better word) was deliberately based on this superficial deception. It is quite peculiar that the United States never saw a problem in its attempt to change the dinning culture of entire nations, but backed off almost every time when it comes to deeper things like the form of governance or questions of liberty.

The United States became an empire by accident, unwilling to fully take up the responsibility that comes with being the world’s strongest state. The British Historian Niall Ferguson remarked that the US is “an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which, if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an Empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is an empire in denial.” It only exported the easy, superficial parts of its culture: Food, music, movies. But those things are the result of American culture, not its precondition. And indeed, this neglect, as Ferguson describes it, has “breed the greatest threats to security”: On 9/11, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a country that had a friendly relationship with the United States since the 1930s and, in fact, owns its independence to the patronage of the US. In 1946 Colonel William Eddy was the first United States minister to Saudi Arabia. In his first meeting with Ibn Saud, the country’s founder, he was told: “We will use your iron, but you will leave our faith alone.” Compare this to the story of British India: In the early days of British rule there was the widespread tradition of “suttee”, the burning of widows together with their dead husbands. The British general Charles Napier was observing this tradition and decided not to leave their faith alone: “You say it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

It was an obvious feature of British Imperialism to export its vision of justice and government, and there can be no doubt that modern India is better off without suttee. The political correct mind would probably argue that this is an imperialistic view, but at its time it was called “cultural confidence.”

When the United States, on the other hand, came to Saudi Arabia, they decided to provide 20th century technology to an 8th century ideology. And, contrary to the American model, the Saudis do use their oil money to spread their ideology or show “cultural confidence”. Look at the numbers: In 1974 Saudi Arabia’s exports were to 91% oil-related. In 2004, it was still 91%. So what did they do with all the oil revenue? They train and finance Imams, build mosques spreading the Wahhabi version of Islam, fund the OIC and its attempts to make a public discourse of Islam impossible.

Even those institutions that were built by Americans to teach and educate moved into the backwater of Anti-Americanism. Don’t believe it? Well, in 2004 Professor Galal Amin, a professor at the American University of Cairo, wrote in Egypt’s Al-Ahram Weekly, that “there is still doubt that the September [11] attacks were the outcome of Arab and Islamic terror…. Many writers…suspect that the attacks were carried out by Americans.” This seeming to be an important observation at AUC, Prof. Amin was seconded by his colleague Abdallah al-Ashal, professor of international law and political science who said during an interview in 2008: “I claim that since the events of 9/11, which were created by Sharon and Bush – the two of them shared a secret.” The idea, of course, that the mere existence of schools and better education will eliminate radicalism, terrorism and political violence is regularly contested by reality. The Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded by a graduate of the London School of Economics, the London subway bombers were university students and fully integrated into the British society – fans of Fish’n Chips, Cricket and soccer. You can loathe Western society and still enjoy the seductions it has to offer – from pornography (the main preoccupation of Mohammed Atta besides plotting the 9/11 attacks) to Pepsi and Rod Stewart (the passion of Mullah Omar). But while it is understandable that the more radical Islamists denounce the West and try to spew their propaganda, it is surprising that the West itself does not seem to realize the problem at all. It is nice when the US-Ambassador in Beirut proudly announces that the US is the largest donor to UNRWA and builds schools throughout the Near- and Middle East, but, unfortunately, has no influence on the curriculum of these schools. Sure, I forgot: Lebanon and all these countries are sovereign nations and they do not want foreigners to interfere in what they teach at school. Fair enough, so the United States is not a sovereign nation? Ever heard of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia? Or its most well known graduate, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali who tried to assassinate the US-President in 2005? Probably not, because all major news outlets from the AP to the New York Times declined to mention some background details on the school that turned Mr. Abu Ali into a radical. Described as a mere “high school” by the New York Times, a closer look might have revealed additional information. For example that the school describes itself as “subject to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” or that its classes are based on “the curriculum, syllabus, and materials established by the Saudi Ministry of Education.” Luckily for the school’s pupils, the Saudi Ministry of Education offers a straight forward curriculum concentrating on Wahhabi history and “Islamic values and the Arabic language and culture” and, of course, “the superiority of Jihad.” Part of this educational experience is that in 11th grade students are taught that on the final day of judgment Muslims will kill every Jew on the planet, and one can only guess how beneficial the view of the “Saudi Ministry of Education” is on Christianity and the West, given that even the possession of a Bible constitutes a crime in Saudi Arabia. In other words: While America finances schools in the Arab world that teach the loathing of the West, Saudi Arabia finances Schools in North America that teach the loathing of the West. To a certain degree, one is reminded of the old cold war joke where the American tells his Soviet friend: “This is a free country; everybody is allowed to criticize our president.” His friend answers: “Same here, in the Soviet Union everybody is allowed to criticize your president.” In a certain way, radical Islam has been a more successful export product than McDonalds: Pakistan adopted Islamic Law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. In 1960, Nigeria had English Common Law, now half of the country is under Sharia law, fighting a bloody war with the half that is not. Even in NATO-occupied Afghanistan a person trying to convert to Christianity has to face death threats. It is not the caves Tora-Bora that threaten the success in Afghanistan; it is in the classrooms of Kabul where the outcome of this conflict is decided. The Duke of Ellington famously said that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton,” if so, the battle against radical Islam might as well be lost in the backyards of the madrassas. If the West is not willing to present and defend an alternative ideology, more and more people will start looking for one elsewhere.

The Soviet Union failed in the end because the majority of Eastern Europeans wanted to live like their Western brothers and sisters. In the view of Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians and all the other formerly Communist nations, Western Democracy was the future, not Soviet Communism. In other words, it was the battlefield of ideas that in the end brought down the Soviet system. The question now is, how are we doing on this battlefield in the Muslim World? Not so well, I would guess: If we look at current trends, a large number of people between Morocco and Indonesia see their future in an Islamic society under Sharia law. A view that is, by the way, shared by an increasing number of Muslims living in the West. The difference is that in the 80s there actually were several institutions from the Catholic Church to NGOs like Helsinki Watch (now known as human rights watch) who actively promoted Western values.

Nowadays, however, every attempt to do the same in the Muslim World is denounced as Imperialism, Colonialism or even Racism.
According to the UN’s demographic division in 1974 the Muslim World represented about 15% of the global population and the Western World accounted for approximately 30%. In 2004, both are at an almost equal 20%, with the latter in population decline while the former shows strong population growth. So I would suggest that the political views and philosophical principles the strongest growing demographic group on the planet ascribes to might have some impact on what the world looks like a few generations down the road. History is usually made by the most determined, and not the so-called silent minority. Neither the Nazis in Germany, nor the Bolsheviks in Russia ever won a majority in an election. Their determination, however, brought them to power anyway.

To leave the field to the radicals in the Muslim World, no matter under which name they appear, would mean to abandon all those millions of believers who just want to go on with their daily lives, raise their children and have a sense of security. In light of the most recent decision by Western governments to abandon Afghanistan in 2014, we might want to rethink the signals we are sending to the world. If we are not willing to defend our values and beliefs, why should they.

20 Minuten Schweiz reports:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has approved the acquisition of fighter planes for up to four billion dollars (3.1 milliard euros), his office communicated on Sunday. According to military information, Israel intends to purchase 20 stealth bombers of the type F-35I from the the US Lockheed Martin group. They are thus to be financed with US military aid.

In a comment on Sunday, Barak stated that the fighter plain would enable Israel to maintain its superiority in the air. The F-35I machine cannot be detected by enemy radar. As observers have noted, the stealth bombers could aid Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

The planes have arrived to late for an attack on the Iranian nuclear reactor Busher that could become an important part of the Iranian nuclear weapons arsenal. According to media reports, the structurally complete reactor surprisingly is to commence operation at the end of August already, being supported by fuel through aid from Russia. The window of opportunity is now closed for the destruction of the construction without the danger of releasing large quantities of radioactive materials.

Reuters reports:

In Aqaba, there were four people injured. In Eilat, many shots missed the hotel complexes near to the beach and landed in the sea. There were no injuries here. The rockets were apparently fired from the bordering Sinai desert in direct vicinity to Eilat, according to matching reports from Jordan and Israel. A similar attack happened back in April.

In Aqaba there were four people injured, according to statements from the Jordanian interior ministry, who had stopped in front of a luxury hotel near to the beach. One of the victims was seriously injured. Residents told Reuters that a taxi was completely destroyed.

In neighboring Israeli Eilat there were, according to statements from the police, no injuries. According to statements from police chief Moche Cohen, the authorities there followed up on tips from residents that had heard a total of five explosions. Two of the shots indeed fell into the sea, another rocket hit in Aqaba. Even though it was too early for a final statement, he believes that the rockets were fired from the south, that is from the bordering Egyptian Sinai. There have already been countless attempts by Islamist extremists to attack Israel from there.

Eilat was shot on the last time in April. This was the first incident in years on the usually quiet border between Israel and Jordan. Before that Eilat was last met with extremist violence in 2007 when a suicide bomber pushed through the border with Egyptian Sinai protected weakly by a fence and blew himself up in a bakery. Besides the attacker, three people died in the incident.

The federal government in Berlin harshly condemned the rocket attack. A speaker for the government said that the participants in the peace process are not to allow themselves to be provoked by extremists. The shots show once again how important peace is that is based on negotiations. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has refused up till now to enter into direct negotiations with Israel.

Thus, there are already good suggestions by German foreign policy makers. In any case there exists already a peace accord between Egypt and Israel that is based on negotiations. That didn’t prevent the rocket attack. Thus, one could conclude: a peace based on negotiations with Muslims remains an unsecure matter.

Thus, they would have to relinquish the delivery of electricity, gas, foodstuffs, medicines and special aid by the hated Jews, and as is normal with countries, care for their own population. This is such a horrible idea to do-gooders who constantly remind Israel of its duties, but break out in screaming when it makes use of its sovereign rights, like the pursuit of terrorists or the monitoring of the sea passage.

Whoever thought of such a thing would have to be an “ultra right-wing” politician, as die Welt reports. N-TV tries a quiter approach in their report:

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman apparently has plans of great significance. He would like to see recognition of the de facto Hamas government in the Gaza Strip by the EU. In order that Hamas can take complete control of the Gaza Strip, he apparently intends to ask the international community to erect a power station for the production of electricity. International commando units, the French foreign legion among them, are to put a stop to weapons smuggling. Ships will be able to arrive at the Gaza harbor, but will have to be inspected for weapons in Limassol in Cyprus or in Greek harbors. Inasmuch as that would be set up, Israel would hermetically seal its own borders with the Gaza Strip; Israel would deliever neither electricity nor water or any other goods to Gaza, and would be absolved of any other responsibility for that stretch of land. (…)

In the background talks, the officer however asserted that these ideas of Liebermans have been coursing around “for weeks” in Israel’s foreign ministry. Lieberman has even delivered them to his Italian colleague Franco Frattini and intends to present them on July 28th to the EU foreign ministers under invitation, among them Guido Westerwelle. Lieberman invited both of them to Israel and recommended that they visit the Gaza Strip. Just a short while ago, Minister of Development Dirk Niebel had not been allowed to do this.

Lieberman’s idea of a “second and ultimate separation” of the Gaza Strip still hasn’t received approval from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, it was said.

The recommendation that Lieberman apparently passed on to the newspaper as a weather balloon would mean that Israel would have to give up inspecitions of the outer borders in the case of the Gaza strip. In addition Israel is not under obligation on the basis of the Oslo accords, which have never been recognized by Hamas. Lieberman’s desired recognition of the Hamas government by the Europeans would seal the political division of the Palestinians in a “Hamastan” in Gaza and a “Fatah Land” in West Jordan, and mean a partial termination of the Oslo accords because in them, Gaza and West Jordan are seen as a unit.

That would also signify an end to the peace process that Israel along with American and other agents at any rate could carry out with only West Jordan since the 2007 Hamas putsch. In the end, the autonomic authorities of Mahmoud Abbas were thrown out of Gaza in July 2007 while Hamas doesn’t intend to allow any more elections at the behest of Abbass. Lieberman’s Plan would also bury the idea of a two-state solution because there would, in fact, already be an independent Hamas state, while in West Jordan, negotiations would still have to be made regarding the founding of a future second Palestinian state. If Israel should in fact “hermetically seal” its borders to the Gaza Strip, as Lieberman was cited, then on the land route there would be access to nothing but Egypt.

Egypt doesn’t appear in the plan. The idea of Transportation Minister Israel Katz of putting the Gaza strip completely under Egyptian responsibility was meanwhile indignantly rejected by Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Lieberman is indeed going on without Egypt’s approval. Since the Gaza Strip can be reached by ship, then the Europeans, for example, would have to guarantee a provision for the strip of land in case even Egypt, besides Israel, should close its borders out of fear of Islamic fundamentalists.

According to statements of the newspaper, Lieberman expects approval for his plan, for it would mean the end of the blockade demanded by all sides, end Israel’s occupation, and for the caged-in population of the Gaza Strip it would mean mobility that would no longer be checked by Israel, for example, when going by ferry to Greece or Cyprus.

The suggestions certainly cannot please the European sorcerer’s apprentices, however through this, they just might have to allow the consequences of their own moral presumptuousness, instead of the usual rude admonishings of Israel.

For Israel, though, there would be only advantages: The national border with Gaza could be more secured than can be found anywhere else in the world — not only between enemy states like Korea, but also between the US and Mexico, or like the border between the EU and Morocco in the Spanish enclave Ceuta (photo above).

Its own government would be responsible for the provisions of the new state, which up until now has been hindered by the total supply of power, water, gas, medical supplies and the daily delivery of tons of aid supplies as much as possible by Israel. The border crossing to the Islamic brethren nation in Egypt would serve as a means of supply, and, of course, the open sea way that would be navigated daily by the colorfully bannered aid flotillas full of prominent do-gooders from all over the world — only as long as an independent Pali state, that is no longer a thorn in the flesh for Israel, is still of interest to “international aid organizations.”

However, the best is this: Israel could finally react to military attacks from the neighboring country, for example by rocket fire, just as any country in this world would when they are militarily attacked by a neighboring country.

» Dr. Gudrun Eussner: The Eviction of Gaza. Jubilee!

(Photo: Example for Gaza? A 10-km long border fence separates the EU from its Muslim neighbors at the Spanish enclave Ceuta / Translation: Anders Denken)

An adult encourages the children in the prayers of Allah, and that Allah loves shahids above all.

“May Allah watch over the children of Palestine. Allah will hear our prayers.”

You can see and listen to the Birds of Paradise song here:

(Hat Tip: Daniel Katz)

Noam Arnon is a man who has learned to live with dangers every day. He has had poor experiences with the western media. “They see the truth, but they report lies,” he declares. We are meeting in the shade of the playing field that has secured from shooting.

50 Jews have already been shot by Arabs on this street. Among them was a Jewish baby that was targeted by sharpshooters while in the baby carriage. Noam Arnon recounts the history of Hebron, about the Hadassah hospital, which was the first one built in Israel, and the bloody massacre of 1929 that was supposed to drive the Jews out of Hebron for good.

A museum documents the history of the area with impressive images, what happened to its inhabitants in 1929, and the difficulties with which the community has to struggle.

Why Arnon wishes to remain in Hebron, he explains with an anecdote about the first Israeli president Chaim Weizmann, a chemist, who led a good life in Great Britain, but still had the desire to emigrate to Israel. When he was asked why he wished to go to Israel of all places, he said: “You also drive 50 kilometers each week to see your mother, because of this, many old women live here in the city.” The mother, the fatherland, is not to be replaced by anything.

Today, the Jewish population in Hebron totals around 400 members. They all live on a single street and the surroundings, even though the Israeli-controlled area of Hebron H2 is somewhat larger. They are in danger to loose their lives every single day.

The Jews are not allowed to build and sell any more houses; there is great fear in the government for Arab revenge and a new wave of violence. The policies of the new US president Obama, who wishes for the abolition of Jewish settlements without being more knowledgeable about the problems related to this subject, have also had a negative effect. The Arabs are not allowed to drive with a car on the one Jewish street. They are aloud to go along on foot, but they feel incredibly discriminated against. On the other hand, the Jews are prohibited from even entering the much greater Arab part of Hebron. If they do so, they put their life in jeopardy.

Six soldiers that keep watch on the Jewish street became famous this week when broke out in a little dance:

The media report about it:

PI met the six soldiers day before yesterday at exactly the same place. As punishment, they have to create another film that shows why one shouldn’t create such videos.

Through the concrete protection barriers on the edge of the street, a totally different Hebron is visible, Great Hebron H1, where Jews have no access and it is almost 100 percent inhabited by Muslim Arabs. Whoever would imagine a small town of ruins, would do so in total error. Hebron, contrary to all the Palestinian recitations of complaint, is full of new houses, is modern and in a better condition than the Jordanian capital Amman.

At Abraham’s grave, where the Jewish location can again lay claim to a fractional part of space, there is situated a giant mosque, again to which the Jews have no access.

Christians are allowed to enter the mosque. The female Christians must, of all things, cover themselves in long burka-blue hooded sacks in order not to “defile” the building — somewhat different from the Jewish quarter where short skirts and sleeveless arms are allowed — and especially when they have already bound themselves with head covering in hasty obedience.

Abraham’s Grave – Jewish:

Abraham’s Grave – Islamic:

In front of the mosque, PI encountered an Arab who is the overseer of a group of Palestinian wristwatch vendors and states that he belongs to a pro-Palestinian “aid initiative.” The man offers a guided tour through Arab Hebron and boasts that he has guided EU parliamentarians many times before (which might not necessarily be a lie). His dissertations about the conditions of people in Hebron belong, however, in the Kingdom of Fables:

Fable 1: The Arabs in Hebron are poor and have nothing to eat — the reality is visibly different.

Fable 2: The often inquiries regarding the estimated one million Arab residents (true numbers are at 200.000) in the city are being constantly pelted with trash and rocks by the estimated 400 Jews. Even if that would be true for an isolated case, the Arabs in return shoot at the Jews with cannonballs.

Fable 3: The Arab “Cordoba School” is already 3000 years old. Cordoba was, in fact, the center of the Spanish-Islamic El-Andalus colony that was reconquered by the Spaniards. “Remember Cordoba” in Islamic context means remember the area out of which we were driven — that belonged to us once and we want once again. It isn’t for no purpose that the mosque building project at New York’s Ground Zero is called “Cordoba House.” European do-gooders, on the other hand, see the name “Cordoba” as innocuous because it brings to mind the so-called “Golden Age” in Spain. But since the Cordoba School is already 3000 years old, and thus it happens to be older than Islam itself, this one is totally absurd.

Likewise, there were representatives of the “Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron” on site (TIPH), a Palestinian security organization that feels called to watch over the few Jews in case of possible misdeeds. Two observers of the TIPH have been shot by Arab terrorists, by the way, who had confused them with Jews. TIPH claims until today, they wouldn’t know who shot their comrades. The international friends of Palestine were standing accordingly on Shahid Street. Upon questioning, the Arab “guide” explained that a one becomes a shahid when he is shot by a Jew. That doesn’t apply to Christians, however, only to Muslims.

Arab Hebron is like a giant aquarium full of sharks wanting to be considered as a minute goldfish pond by the world. This city, which is possibly the most Arabic city in the whole Israeli territory, is a symbol for the entire Western Middle East policy.

» Eussner: Nahostkonflikt. Die Rolle Norwegens im Westjordanland

(The original appeared on the Russian-speaking Israeli website Botnik, Translation by Bella and Anders Denken)

We can close our eyes to the ex-Soviet media’s supression of the fact that the Jewish soldiers of the Red Army were the only ones that never fought on the side of the enemy. They remain silent about the fact that the Jewish people were the major part of the “heroes of the Soviet Union.” They remain silent that the greatest number of partisan bonds made in the occupied areas were formed by Jews for the purpose of saving their compatriots. They are silent about the heroes of the Warsaw ghettos and the Soviet heroes in the Spanish civil war.

We can close our eyes to that, but we cannot do so when you speak about the significance of the victory over “Hitlerism,” while, at the same time, you make a flight to Syria for an official visit to meet with the leader of the terrorist organization “Hamas.” In this you forget the significance that the person Adolf Hitler had in the Islamic world, where he is depicted as the “great defender of Islam” and his work “Mein Kampf (My Struggle)” is counted among the most favorite books. Of course we understand that your love of the Arab terrorists is ingrained by traditional Soviet political anti-Semitism in the form of “anti-Zionism,” but when you speak of love for veterans, please don’t forget how many veterans of the great war of the fatherland live in Sderoth and other cities that were seized as targets from the Arab terrorists.

Tens of thousands of war veterans — not just Jews — are numbered among the targets of the Islamists who see as their absolute goal not only the destruction of the State of Israel, but also — even as Hitler had wished — the complete annihilation of the Jewish people. Their friendly meeting with the leader of Hamas terrorists only four days after Victory Day is an outrageous act with respect to the Russian veterans and the veterans of other Soviet republics who live in Israel.

In Soviet times, our veterans learned to be silent, and because of this they seldom express their unhappiness now. We grandchildren can call you a traitor, since — now that we live in our historical motherland — we love this country more than Russia where we were born. Or you can call us aggressors because we are compelled to fight in the army to defend our families. But, please, don’t spit on the souls of our veterans who have defended the right of your and our people to life.

For Medvedev’s greeting, the Syrians play the national anthems of Russia and Syria with haram wind instruments:

Thousands of Palestinians from all of Europe are expected at the occasion. The Palestinian Conference takes place annually “on the anniversary of the Palestinian catastrophe” (the founding of the State of Israel). Previous venues have been London, Vienna, Rotterdam, Copenhagen and Milan. For the FIOE (Logo), in which Russia, the CIS and Turkey already take part, Europe is already ripe for Islam anyway.

The Berlin conference, by the way, will take place in the Tempodrom on Möckernstrasse 10-25. Tickets can be purchased exclusively for the 9th of May at this location for a “Reading of the Quran in Memorial of God’s Emissary (as mercy for the whole world) and Quran recitations.”

(Translation: Anders Denken)

I don’t want to link to everything, but it seems that Rev. Frida Rothe had this document in mind in her reference this past Saturday. In doing so, she compared Gaza and the Palestinan autonomic regions directly to the former Apartheid regime in South Africa, and thus equated Israeli government with that regime.

Excerpt:

Today Christians from Palestine are succeeding. From suffering under the occupation, they make — so they say — a cry of hope. They call it “Kairos Palestina.” They hope that God will free their people from occupation and the seizure of land just like he freed the people in South Africa from Apartheid. The expect that Christians in the whole world will take up their cry in the spirit of Easter faith of love and reconciliation.

And we? Will we recognize the determining moment?

I don’t want to go into complete detail; others can do that much better. On Israelaktuell, they show among other things the massive pressure and threat of violence by Hamas of signing such a document. PI readers have already received enough examples of this kind, where persons who have pitted themselves against Hamas have been shot in the knees as warning. Those individuals have, therefore, come to understand what it means to stand against Hamas. Israelaktuell phrases it a little more politely.

There was an interesting lecture from even this same Rev. Frida Rothe on July 1, 2008, in the church of Kohlesbach in Weilheim-Teck. The title of this lecture was “60 years of the establishment of the State of Israel — 60 years of Nabka of the Palestinians.” Truly a praiseworthy, neutral title, however since both viewpoints were mentioned in the title, then it seems that a neutral lecture would have been given. The worst expectations that some participants had in spite of that — since we know the kind of people we’re dealing with here — were well exceeded. First, she mentioned her desire of telling about her last trip to visit Palestinian friends in Ramallah. The CD, stupidly enough, didn’t function with the pictures; however, she had an older CD with her that contained previous visits. After these beginning problems, she finally was able to get on with the presentation. In a word, it was the typical antisemitic method used by our leftwing and extreme Left.

My definition of antisemitic is this: when equal results from identical treatment receive differing evaluations, regardless of whether one is Palestinian or Israeli. It became clear in a very short time that the Israeli was to blame for everything, the old well-known antisemitic method. Of course, she showed pictures from the border fence for proof, or she called it the border wall. She then showed a picture from the middle of the Old Quarter where the wall is nine meters tall. The indignant whispering of the older listeners could not be overheard, even though some of the ideology of the Hitler Youth era certainly came to mind in some listeners. One listener indicated that about 95 to 98 percent of the fence’s length exists right where the TV team had been invited by certain appointments — and where the exposed area in this photography was taken — in order to stage the gleeful throwing of stones at Israel through effective media coverage. He also pointed out that the wall was nine meters tall right in these places so that stones can’t be thrown over, since some Israelis had suffered from fractured skulls from such stone throws. Furthermore, she was informed that the real reason of the border fence’s erection was because of the suicide attackers from Gaza and Western Jordan, that indeed 211 Israelis had been killed by them in 2002, and that after the building of the protection fence, the count of those who were murdered fell to six in 2006 and to one in 2007. The minister pushed this objection aside with the words that a wall or a fence was no solution for the conflict.

Then she took a mental jump and started reporting about Ahmadinejad’s rumored speech: the old, well-known, extreme left version, where he absolutely did not say that he would drive the Israelis into the sea, but that his speech had been incorrectly translated. Which begs the question, whether this splitting of hairs is really so decisive, for it is simply undeniable that he is a most vicious anti-Semite. And any ally is justified in her antisemitism. Next came the story of the alleged robbery of land by the Israelis. That this is the direct result of the attacks from the Arab countries was, of course, kept quiet. Then she told next of a Palestinian wedding to which she was invited and was able to participate in. Of course, the Apartheid of the sexes was the rule, men and women were strictly separated in the celebration, and she stressed as well, how nice it was to celebrate without the men around.

The most impressive thing was when she recounted, with a glimmer in her eyes, how her daughter — apparently, very much the mother — wanted to buy and wear a Hijab, and she reported how nice, enthusiastic and friendly the lady of the shop was, and especially how happy the daughter was about her new head covering.

At the end, another listener asked, that since she had lived a good while in Jerusalem, whether she had also found Israeli-Jewish friends, or perhaps gotten to know some then. The answer wasn’t surprising anymore by that time. No, she lived in the Arab part of Jerusalem, and therefore she had Arab friends exclusively, and had also not sought out any Israeli ones, since by that time “she had already stood on the side of the oppressed, defenseless, and those without rights.”

Aha, the world is so simple.

P.S.: I heard later on, that a participant had offered to do a presentation from the Israeli viewpoint to Pastor Brigitte Turnacker of the corresponding church. He is still waiting to this day for an answer to his letter.

» Email Frida Rothe at: pfarramt@kirche-gutenberg.de

(By Anonymouse / Translation: Anders Denken)

(By the Editrix)

What did Obama actually do within the short time he is in office? Domestically, a lot of things to keep grievances and polarisation between the races alive and thriving, while peddling his (and his wife’s) mawkish self-promotion, but that doesn’t count all that much for the awarders. Externally, and that DOES count, a summary is equally easy. His first official interview was with a Muslim radio network, his entire demeanour towards the Muslim world is humble and conciliatory, stressing his own Muslim ties and hopes for a Palestinian state, an attitude he even maintains when asked if America could “live with” Iranian nuclear weapons. (A recipe for peace if I have ever seen one.) His term in office took off with a Mideast peace push that included an unequivocal demand for Israel to halt settlement activity in the West Bank, and we all know how well that “land for peace”-thingy has worked so far for Israel, don’t we. But to be fair, he isn’t all THAT much more hostile towards Israel or the Jews in the Middle East than American officials have been, historically, anyway.

His job, he said, is “to communicate [to the Muslim world] that the Americans are not your enemy”, which is not easily to bring in line with another “job”, namely the protection of his country from further Muslim aggression, and yes, when we equate “peace” with that of the graveyard, the awarders of the Nobel Peace Price are not all THAT far off the mark.

But let’s stop the cynicisms. Dear Americans, didn’t he swear to protect you and your country? And does anybody remember the botched oath? Does anybody see a connection here? Does anybody remember, too, that he grew up as a Muslim and that this “religion” punishes apostasy by death, yet that he is, of all notable apostates, the only one still alive and not under massive death threats? Does anybody remember his butt high in the air, bowing to the Saudi king like a waiter, this leader of the free world? Does anybody ever seriously ask him why? Or where the money for his campaign came from? Too many questions only too many people never ask.

WHY don’t you ever seriously ask all that, Americans? Now you will go on bellyaching that a leftist liberal pinko commie, a charismatic seducing his followers in either Stalinist or Nazi spirit (depending on the bogeyman pf choice) and anti-white racist is now at the receiving end of the Nobel Peace Price while the Muslim world will do … WHAT?

The good side? Easy! There have been worse choices:

In the following you see two videos. The first about Ahmadinejad’s “mission” and secondly his full speech at the UN-conference “against racism” in Geneva.

On Petitiononline an open letter has been published by which you get the possibility to protest against this “art project” . Read here the text from Petitiononline:

Earlier this year, the Council of the Berlin Borough of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg gave its approval to the exhibition “Wall on Wall” at the East Side Gallery by the river Spree. The Gallery is the longest remaining part of the former Berlin Wall, the most visible expression of the former German Democratic Republic’s dictatorial one-party system.

However, the final decision on the open-air exhibition has time and again been postponed; the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg is now expected to reach a conclusive decision on April 23, 2008. The Borough’s Cultural Committee will first discuss the project on April 16. So far the German Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Left Party’s federal working group “Shalom Berlin der Linksjugend [`solid]” as well as a number of Members of the German Parliament have disassociated themselves from the project in public.

Of course, criticism – of isolation, of walls (particularly inside people’s heads), of racism as well as of the refusal to offer protection to those in need – is an elementary part of any democracy. Especially since the 1990s, many groups, organizations, politicians and committed people from all walks of all life in the Federal Republic of German have actively worked with refugees and against anti-racism, this in view of the fact that since the 1990s attacks on refugees and migrants and their killings by neo-Nazis have increased to an unprecedented extent. More than 100 people defined as ›un-German‹ by neo-Nazis were killed since.

What though is the point of the “Wall on Wall” project that is under discussion? For a few weeks pictures taken by the photographer Kai Wiedenhöfer are to be shown on the East Side Gallery’s walls. Wiedenhöfer himself initiated the project. In 2007 he published a book of illustrations showing photographs of Israel’s anti-terror wall between Israel and the Palestinian Autonomous Territories.

Between September 29, 2000 and December 1, 2004 a total of 919 Israelis were killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists. 6,123 Israelis were injured. During this period 20,416 terrorist attacks took place.

The purpose of the wall, which is actually in large parts a fence, is to prevent and protect people from terrorist attacks which have been occurring on a daily basis. Like the recent attack on the fuel depot Nahal Oz where two Jewish people were killed. One of them leaves behind his ex-wife as well as a daughter in Germany.

Wiedenhöfer’s photo book shows 50 double-paged panorama style pictures of the anti-terror protection wall in Israel. The photographs were taken between 2003 and 2006 and display different perspectives on the wall. Harmless horses, small children and Arabic women with headscarves are shown standing opposite Israeli soldiers, facing this fence or wall. For Wiedenhöfer the Jews are the perpetrators, Palestinians are displayed as victims. There is not a single photograph of a Jew blown to pieces by an Islamic-Arabic suicide bomber. Not a single fanatic Jihad fighter set against the Jews by the terrorist organisation Hamas or by preachers in West Bank mosques is to be seen. For years they have been using their own civilian population as shields or as smugglers of bombs. The fence is directed against these terrorists. Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. Over one million of its citizens are Arabs. The Israeli Minister of Sciences and Sport is Arab. These Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than under an undemocratic, Islamic-Arabic regime.

Whoever compares the Berlin Wall – a symbol of dictatorship, a rejection of a Western liberal attitude – to the Israeli fence that is directed against attacks by Palestinian and other anti-Semitic terrorists, acts irresponsibly and with an anti-Semitic attitude. It is a feature of modern anti-Semitism to compare or equate Israel to dictatorships. This is exemplified by Wiedenhöfer’s photo book which was published last year. On pages 92/93 it shows a photo of the protective wall smeared by anti-Semites as follows: »Warsaw 1943«, flanked by swastikas and the Star of David, next to it »American Money – Israeli Apartheid«. Equating the Warsaw Ghettoes with the situation Palestinians in the Palestinian Autonomous Territories are finding themselves in today is a typical and particularly disgraceful case of anti-Semitism. Jews are likened to their murderers, i.e. German Nazis. The European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism as well as international research on anti-Semitism have analyzed this as being judeophobia.

It is intended to expand the exhibition to include depictions of border installations in the U.S./Mexico, in south-western Europe or in Northern Ireland, yet this does not affect the basic spirit in which this scandalous exhibition was conceived.

We are finding it hard to believe that members of the Green Party, the largest party in the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, intend to support such an exhibition, since some of its members used to represent the former “Bündnis 90”, an opposition movement in the former German Democratic Republic. One would not expect them to favour a grotesque playing down of the Berlin Wall.

Whoever turns against the anti-terror fence – built as a mere protection for Israel – closes his or her eyes to the fact that without the fence every day people in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem would feel scared to death on any bus on their way to work.

Should the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg decide in favour of the anti-Semitic exhibition “Wall on Wall”, we will see this as a sign that nothing has been learnt from history. We will understand that the Borough supports anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism as well as a playing down of the GDR’s Berlin Wall, so hostile to human beings.

We demand from the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg in Berlin:

No space for the anti-Israeli exhibition „Wall on Wall“ by the Berlin Wall

No playing down of the dictatorship of the state party in the former GDR nor of the prison that the GDR meant to its people

No equating of democracies such as Israel, Europe, Northern Ireland and the U.S. with a dictatorship (GDR)

We furthermore demand from the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg:

No space for the plotting of anti-Semitic world conspiracy theories such as they are part of the exhibition organized by Kai Wiedenhöfer (Israel – Nazis – U.S. – money – Israel’s »Apartheid«)

The creation of a partnership with the Israeli town of Sderot which is under daily threat by rockets from the Gaza Strip, analogous to the twinning of the Borough of Tempelhof-Schöneberg with the Israeli town of Nahariya

Solidarity with the State of Israel and a telegram congratulating on its 60th anniversary.

» Previous signatures