A Republican Attack on Muslims? What About a Democratic Attack on the Truth?

Tweet

Sorry, but it's once again time to be politically incorrect.

Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "The Republican Attack on Muslims," The New York Times declared:

"The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is drawing criticism over the bigoted comments he has been making recently about Muslims. It is well deserved, and is not a matter of 'P.C. culture,' as Mr. Carson has claimed. Nor does Mr. Carson represent some minor fringe element in the Republican Party.

This latest sordid mess to arise from the G.O.P. nomination contest touches on bedrock American values, constitutional principles and American history. It reflects a pernicious habit among the leaders of the Republican Party to play with fire by pandering to an angry, disaffected and heavily white base by demonizing selected minorities. Muslims are just the current target."

Muslims are just the current target of Republicans? Let's put it to the test. As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Now that's a relief! If you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to bits.

But why rely only on Pew? In a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• If shariah conflicts with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 33 percent answered that shariah "should be considered supreme."
• 36 percent declared that Muslims in the US should be free to choose courts or tribunals in the US that apply shariah law, whereas 15 percent opined that Muslims in the US should be subject only to shariah courts.
• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."
• Nine percent believed that the beliefs of the Islamic State are "correct and consistent with shariah."
• Eight percent believed that the beliefs of al-Qaeda are "correct and consistent with shariah."

Having perused these numbers, are you feeling much relieved? Fabulous! So now let's move away from the so-called Republican attack on Muslims, and have a look at Democrats attack on the truth - and I'm not referring to Hillary's burgeoning email scandal or attempts to manipulate intel to support the Obama administration's effort to downplay the danger of the Islamic State. Rather, let's have a look at what Iran has been saying in recent days about the United States and Israel in the wake of Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, and what Senate and House Democrats are choosing to ignore.

As translated by MEMRI, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan stated on Lebanon's Mayadeen TV on September 1, 2015 (my emphasis in red):

"Hizbullah does not need us to supply them with rockets and arms. Israel and the US need to know this. Today, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah have the capability of producing their own resources and weapons themselves. Nevertheless, we shall not refrain from supporting them. They received the technology from us and from others, and today they produce them themselves. I officially declare that under no circumstances will we refrain from providing material and moral support to Hizbullah, or to any group of the resistance to the US and Israel. We say this loud and clear. We have declared this officially, and we intend to continue on this path."

In addition, as observed by Yigal Carmon in a September 22, 2015 MEMRI brief entitled "Iran Openly Declares That It Intends To Violate UNSCR 2231 That Endorses The JCPOA":

"In a July 20, 2015 interview on Iranian Channel 2, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and senior negotiator Abbas Araghchi said that there had been tough bargaining between the Iranian and American delegations over the issue of the arms embargo on Iran and the sanctions related to Iran's missile development project. 'The Americans sought their inclusion in the JCPOA, claiming that otherwise they could not face criticism from Arab countries in the region. When they said that they could not lift the sanctions altogether, we told them explicitly that in that case there is no agreement. We told them that the national security issues are non-negotiable and that we will not accept an agreement which continues the embargo on weapons and the sanctions on missile development. In the end, the Americans said, We will put the issue of the embargo and the missiles in the UN Security Council Resolution separate from the agreement.'"

However, as further observed by Carmon, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Zarif, and Araghchi have "emphasized that Iran has no intention of abiding by UNSRC 2231," which incorporates the JCPOA and places restrictions on Iran's missile development.

More? No problem. As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article, Ataollah Salehi, commander of Iran’s army, declared on Tuesday:

"Israel only barks, no matter how much weapons are given to [it], we are going to destroy them, we will promise this task will be done."

But heck, why should we believe anything that these Iranian leaders are currently saying? You see, if we believe President Obama, these gentlemen are all going to experience an epiphany and profess pacifism over the coming decade. Moreover, what's more important to Senate and House Democrats, Obama's legacy or the prevention of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile attack on the US and the survival of Israel, America's only true ally in the Middle East? I suppose we now know the answer.

Iran Threatens the White House: Obama Ignores Iranian Sleeper Cells in the United States

Tweet


The White House is now being threatened by Iran. MEMRI has translated the following excerpt from a June 17, 2015 editorial from the Iranian daily Kayhan (my emphasis in red):

"Let us have faith that America is incapable of any misstep [against Iran], and that it cannot even attack Iranian facilities without the White House being destroyed in under 10 minutes. Let us have faith that the old 'village leader' [i.e. the U.S.] has fallen onto his deathbed, and that even in his youth, he never made the mistake [of daring to attack Iran], and that he, like Israel, remains mired in quicksand. Let us have faith that Britain is a wily fox, and that its laughter is deceptive. Let us have faith in the Koran that says that the enemies are not men of their word, and that God has not permitted the infidels to gain supremacy over the believers..."

Bravado? Not entirely. There are indeed Iranian sleeper cells in the United States awaiting Supreme Leader Khamenei's instructions. You don't believe it? Consider the Iranian 2011 attempt on the life of the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

Time to wake up, President Obama! Or maybe you just don't care.

David Brooks, "Baseball or Soccer?": New York Times Coverage of Israel, Professional Wrestling or Prostitution?

World Cup fever abounds, and David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Baseball or Soccer?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/david-brooks-baseball-or-soccer.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), would have us know that our lives are more akin to soccer than baseball. Brooks writes:

"Most of us spend our days thinking we are playing baseball, but we are really playing soccer. We think we individually choose what career path to take, whom to socialize with, what views to hold. But, in fact, those decisions are shaped by the networks of people around us more than we dare recognize."

Is my life a subconscious soccer game? Frankly, my dear Mr. Brooks, I don't give a damn.

In fact, I am far more intrigued by whether New York Times coverage of Israel and its current war with Hamas is more akin to professional wrestling or prostitution.

First, there was the July 7 editorial of the Times entitled  "Four Horrific Killings" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/can-israeli-and-palestinian-leaders-end-the-revenge-attacks.html?ref=opinion), in which the Times related to the recent murders of four teenagers - three Israelis and one Palestinian. As Mr. Yishai Schwartz wrote in a New Republic article entitled "The New York Times's Editorial on Israel Was a Sloppy Hack Job" (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118605/new-york-times-israel-editorial-was-hack-job):

"I take the deteriorating situation in the Middle East very seriously, and just yesterday I wrote about some disturbing trends in Israeli society. But it’s precisely because of the high quality of the Times’ Middle East news coverage that the glaring factual flaws in yesterday’s editorial, 'Four Horrific Killings,' are so astounding."

Indeed, the Times falsely asserted that Netanyahu had belatedly condemned the murder of the Arab teenager and speciously claimed that a Netanyahu quote of a Bialik poem was intended to incite vengeance.

This editorial was followed by a preposterous Times guest op-ed entitled "A Palestinian Mother’s Fear in East Jerusalem" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/a-palestinian-mothers-fear-in-east-jerusalem.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), in which Ms. Rula Salameh lambasted Israel for not building bomb shelters for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and blamed Israeli authorities for her divorce (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/rula-salameh-palestinian-mothers-fear.html).

Today, in a lead Times article entitled "Gaza Deaths Spike in 3rd Day of Air Assaults While Rockets Hit Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/middleeast/israel-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news), Isabel Kershner writes:

"As the air campaign entered its third day, the Palestinian death toll rose to at least 78, a majority of them civilians, according to officials in Gaza. No Israelis have been reported killed."

My goodness, according to "officials," 78 people in Gaza have died in a conflagration in which Hamas has fired more than 500 missiles at Israeli civilians during the past week! Of course, we are not told how many of the 78 were Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives and commanders (Hamas does not want you to know this information).

Also, no real mention of the use of civilians in Gaza as human shields. See the following July 8, 2014 MEMRI video in which Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri adulates this human-shield policy and commends "the character of our noble, jihad-fighting people":



Yup, when women and children are used as human shields to protect Hamas fighters, inevitably there are going to be civilian casualties.

But more to the point, the death of 78 persons in Gaza, many of them combatants, rates a New York Times headline, notwithstanding the fact that more than 200,000 people are dead in neighboring Syria.

Or "closer to home," civilian deaths in Afghanistan caused by the United States, its allies and Afghan government forces total some 6,500 (see: http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan-database), but it's so much more fun to point a finger at Israel.

So, is New York Times coverage of Israel and its war against Hamas more akin to professional wrestling, i.e. harmless theatrics involving leotard-clad buffoons engaged in acrobatics, or prostitution, i.e. tendentious reporting intended to promote the agenda of the Obama administration?

I will let you decide.

Rula Salameh, "A Palestinian Mother’s Fear in East Jerusalem": Not Afraid of Honor Killings?

Andrew Rosenthal's New York Times op-ed page is back to its old tricks. Who cares if Hamas has fired from Gaza more than 360 missiles at Israeli civilians over the past few days? Instead, the readership of the Times must only be informed of the anger and fear of a Palestinian woman living in East Jerusalem.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Palestinian Mother’s Fear in East Jerusalem" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/a-palestinian-mothers-fear-in-east-jerusalem.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Rula Salameh complains:

"The world must hold the Israeli government accountable for . . . blatant disregard for Palestinians living in East Jerusalem — the lack of bomb shelters is just one of many basic services that the Israeli authorities fail to provide to Palestinians living under their rule."

Fascinating! I hadn't realized that Hamas is targeting the Dome of the Rock and Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

In addition, Ms. Salameh tells us:

"In a cruel twist of fate and policy, the Israeli authorities informed me that my son would not be given a Jerusalem ID as long as I remained married to his father. Because one of his parents was a Palestinian without a Jerusalem ID, my son was not entitled to inherit my residency status. After years of financially and emotionally draining legal struggle, my husband and I divorced — the strain ended not just our marriage but our relationship."

Interesting! Are we to understand that the "Israeli authorities" were solely to blame for her divorce?

Ms. Salameh declares:

"The world must hold the Israeli government accountable for its actions. For its military campaigns that have taken the lives of too many sons and mothers in Gaza over the past few days and in the West Bank over the past few weeks."

Of course, Ms. Salameh does not mention Hamas's policy of using Palestinian civilians as human shields. See the following July 8, 2014 MEMRI video in which Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri adulates this human-shield policy and commends "the character of our noble, jihad-fighting people":



Most remarkably, Ms. Salameh makes no mention of honor killings in Gaza and the West Bank. As reported in March 2014 by Al Jazeera in an article entitled "Upsurge in Palestinian 'honour killings'" (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/upsurge-palestinian-honour-killings-gaza-201432372831899701.html) by Lena Odgaard:

"Two teenage Palestinian girls were killed in separate incidents last month in so-called 'honour killings', revenge attacks carried out most often by family members against women suspected of 'immoral sexual conduct'.

The deaths sparked protests with more than 100 people assembling outside the general attorney's office in Gaza on March 3, demanding violence against Palestinian women come to a halt. Five women died in honour killings in the Palestinian territories in 2011. That number rose to 13 in 2012 and doubled to 26 last year.

. . . .

But the day after the protest, another woman, Samah Bader, was stabbed to death by her husband in their apartment in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. She became the eighth woman killed in the Palestinian territories since the beginning of the year - raising concerns the deadly trend will continue to spiral upwards."

But why mention "honor killings" if this horrifying phenomenon cannot also be blamed upon the "Israeli authorities"? Surely, if we think hard enough, there must also be a way to hold the "Israeli authorities" accountable for this abomination.

Obama Ignores Palestinian Authority Threats of Genocide Against Israel

On Monday, March 17, during a "working lunch" at the White House (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/obama-sucks-up-to-abbas-no-state-for.html), President Obama said of Palestinian Authority President Abbas, currently in his tenth year of a four-year term of office:

"I have to commend President Abbas. He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side in peace and security — a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors."

Abbas has "consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side in peace and security"? Oh really?

On March 12, 2014, i.e. one week before Abbas's lunch with Obama, Fatah Central Committee Member Abbas Zaki appeared on Palestinian Authority television and declared: "Allah will gather the Israelis so we can kill them." This is not violent? How could such a genocidal declaration appear on Palestinian Authority television? Where was the denunciation of Palestinian Authority President Abbas?

Obama is a naif or a liar . . . or both.

Shocking Revelations About Jon Stewart on Egyptian Television!

So you thought you knew everything there was to know about Jon Stewart's political leanings? Well, it turns out that there are those in Egypt who know more about Jon's subversive Middle East agenda than Jon himself. MEMRI kindly brings to us a translation of an Al-Tahrir TV talk show episode, in which a guest explains:

• Jon Stewart is a Jewish-American author, journalist, producer and media personality.
• Jon Stewart's ideology is based on Brzezinski's ideas.
• He is implementing Brzezinski's theory on the American people and media.
• Egypt belongs to them, that it is his homeland.

Of course we all know who "them" is.

Geller and Spencer Refused Entry into the UK: Is Bill Maher Also Persona Non Grata?

As reported by the BBC yesterday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355):

"Two prominent US bloggers have been banned from entering the UK, the Home Office has said.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America.

They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was killed.

A government spokesman said individuals whose presence 'is not conducive to the public good' could be excluded by the home secretary.

He added: 'We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.'

Ms Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog, and Mr Spencer, of Jihad Watch, are also co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, best known for a pro-Israel 'Defeat Jihad' poster campaign on the New York subway."

On his website, "Jihad Watch," Spencer shows us the letter he received from the UK's Home Office, which bars his entry into the UK. The letter, dated June 25, 2013, states in relevant part:

"You are reported to have stated the following:

• '. . . it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal mode that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.'

. . . .

You are therefore instructed not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival."

Query: Is Bill Maher also being banned from entering the UK? Consider Bill Maher's interchange with Brian Levin, director of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism, following the Boston Marathon bombing. "Could they do the 'Book of Islam' on Broadway?" No way.

Now consider the hate speech of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, who calls Jews "blood-suckers" and "descendants of pigs and apes."

Hate speech? You bet! There is no way of knowing if Morsi's regime will survive the protests planned for this coming Sunday (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Two-killed-in-Egypt-street-clashes-as-Mursi-readies-speech-317848), but was there ever talk of banning his entry into the UK?

And ignoring the belief system of Islam for just a moment, what does the home secretary have to say about Patrick Mercer's shameful description of a young girl serving in the Israeli army? "You look like a bloody Jew." My goodness, she was wearing open-toed sandals! Hate speech? No doubt. But Jews today are fair game, whereas Islam is off limits.

Have I also been barred from entering the UK? Am I also "not conducive to the public good"? I can only wonder . . .

Thomas Friedman, "Israel: Bits, Bytes and Bombs": An Interminable Tide of Drivel

Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is back with yet another fatuous opinion piece demeaning Israel.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel: Bits, Bytes and Bombs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/friedman-israel-bits-bytes-and-bombs.html?_r=0), Friedman writes:

"Indeed, the crazy dream Israel is keeping alive is that it can permanently occupy the West Bank, with its 2.5 million Palestinians, to satisfy biblically inspired settlers, who now hold major cabinet positions, like the housing portfolio, in Israel’s new government."

But as well known to Friedman, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas independence along the 1967 lines. Olmert even offered to share Jerusalem, but Arafat and Abbas rejected these offers.

Moreover, a recent Smith Institute poll determined that 62% of Israeli's favor a two-state solution (see: http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Poll-Majority-of-Israelis-support-two-state-solution), but it's difficult to achieve peace when the other side refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Not surprisingly, as determined by Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann of Tel Aviv University: "Some 67% [of Israelis] agree with the assertion that no matter which parties prevail in the elections, the peace process with the Palestinians will remain at a standstill for reasons not connected to Israel, and there is no chance of progress in the foreseeable future" (http://en.idi.org.il/media/2050461/Peace%20Index-December%202012.pdf).

Also conveniently forgotten by Friedman is that fact that Yair Lapid, Minister of Finance and chairman of the Yesh Atid Party, which garnered the second highest tally of votes after Netanyahu's Likud Yisrael Beiteinu Party in Israel's most recent election, favors a two-state solution (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4224132,00.html).

Friedman states, "Amazingly, polls still show a majority on both sides for a two-state deal," but this is not the case. As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493) in 2011, "Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg."

Failing to mention that Israeli built-up settlement area comprises less than two percent of the West Bank, Friedman concludes:

"The best way for Israel to deal with the chaos around it is not to put its head in the sand but to collaborate with Palestinians to build a West Bank state that is modern, secular and Westernizing; one where Muslims, Christians and Jews can work together and that stands in daily refutation of the failing Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood models elsewhere. If Israelis and Palestinians do not try everything — now — to make that happen, this will be remembered not as a lost opportunity but the lost opportunity, and no island will escape the storm that will follow."

Ah, yes, "a West Bank state that is modern, secular and Westernizing." But consider a December 2012 article entitled "Abbas aide: No plans to outlaw 'honor killing'" published by the Palestinian Ma'an News Agency (http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=550792), in which it is written:

"President Mahmoud Abbas has no plans to amend laws that reduce sentences for suspects who claim an 'honor' defense for murdering women, his legal adviser says.

'Why change it? This would cause serious problems,' Hassan al-Ouri told Ma'an, adding that such a reform would 'not benefit women.'

In May 2011, the president pledged to amend the law to guarantee maximum penalties for 'honor killing' in response to protests over the killing of university student Aya Baradiya in Hebron.

The decision was announced in a phone call to a primetime show on state TV, drawing tears among crowds of mourners shown in a live link-up from the Ramallah studio to Baradiya’s hometown.

Abbas suspended Article 340, which offers a pardon for murder if the perpetrator committed the crime on finding his wife in bed with another man.

The reform was cosmetic: Article 340 had never been used in Palestinian courts since it was legislated in 1960.

'So why did we change the law? To garner public opinion,' al-Ouri said in an interview in the presidential compound in Ramallah.

'I, personally, was against the amendment because the crimes that happen in the street have no relevance to Article 340,' the legal adviser added.

Al-Ouri says the president will not change the go-to clauses for lawyers seeking leniency for clients who claim they committed murder to defend family 'honor.'

Articles 97 to 100 of the Jordanian Penal Code, in force in the West Bank, still offer reduced sentences for any act of battery or murder committed in a 'state of rage.'"

A modern secular West Bank state in which women can be murdered upon a whim? Friedman is entirely detached from Muslim Middle East reality.

Morsi, Runner-Up for Time's Person of the Year: Zionists Are "the Descendants of Apes and Pigs"

As you might recall, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a runner-up for Time Magazine's 2012 Person of the Year. (Obama, of course, won the award "For finding and forging a new majority, for turning weakness into opportunity and for seeking, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union." Yeah, right.)

You might not know, however, that in an interview broadcast on Lebanon's Al-Quds TV on September 23, 2010 and recently translated by MEMRI, Morsi declared (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=298434):

"Either [you accept] the Zionists and everything they want, or else it is war. This is what these occupiers of the land of Palestine know – these blood-suckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs."

Charming.

P5 + 1 Showdown in Istanbul Today: Iran "Has No Need to Compromise"

Today, the “P5+1” — the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany - will meet in Istanbul to discuss Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons development program. Obama is warning Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei that this is his "last chance" to honor international demands. This, of course, comes after Obama informed Jeffrey Goldberg in an interview published by The Atlantic one month ago (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/) that "as president of the United States, I don't bluff."

Obama doesn't bluff? He is certainly sending Tehran mixed signals. In December, Obama sought to torpedo the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez Iran Sanctions Act (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-obamas-secret-agenda.html), and now is pushing, via Senator Harry Reid, for a new toothless Senate sanctions bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Thursday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577327800154544244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj):

"Harry Reid is now pushing a watered-down sanctions bill that gives the Administration wide discretion in applying the bill's penalties. The Majority Leader also closed the bill to additional amendments, most conspicuously one from Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.

The Kirk amendment—which would have more of an impact on Iran than the rest of the bill combined—would close loopholes in existing sanctions, including one that allows a handful of Iranian financial institutions (and the Iranian government itself) to continue to do business with the outside world. It would also strengthen disclosure requirements for foreign financial institutions tempted to do business with Iran, effectively putting them to the choice of whether they want to have business ties with the U.S. or with the Islamic Republic."

A week ago, there was also Obama's secret message to Tehran, conveyed via Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-sends-message-to-irans-supreme.html), in which Obama informed Khamenei that the US is prepared to tolerate an Iranian civilian nuclear program and hinted that his ongoing opposition to international action against Iran's ally, Syria, is conditioned upon Iranian cooperation involving the nuclear weapons development issue.

What does Iran think of Obama's "veiled warnings"? As translated by MEMRI, an April 8 article (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6256.htm) in the Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan, which is closely tied to Khamenei, informs us that Khamenei indeed believes that Obama is bluffing:

"'Examining an entire decade of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, one can characterize it as a record of [instances in which] the U.S. adapted its 'red line' to the Iranian [stance]. The Americans always started out with an extreme [position] and ended up with a nominal one...

. . . .

If we plot [these changes] on a graph, it will show an amazing downward plunge... The American administration... always sets large goals [for itself], and makes a huge fuss over them, but, once it realizes that they cannot be implemented, quietly adapts them [to reality] and replaces them with other, humbler, goals, while continuing to make a fuss.

. . . .

So one might say that the West's hands are completely empty [of means with which] to threaten Iran in the upcoming talks... The simple conclusion... is that the West's distress vis-à-vis Iran, on the strategic [level], has become acute, and it seems that the statesmen in the White House have neither the courage nor the wisdom to extract themselves from this historic dead end... Iran is proving that it has no need to compromise with the West in order to grow strong.'"

Yet another Obama foreign relations disaster . . .

Thomas Friedman, "A Middle East Twofer": Wrong Again

Thomas Friedman is again showcasing his buffoonery. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Middle East Twofer" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/a-middle-east-twofer.html), Friedman begins by stating:

"Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, reported last week that the imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti 'released an unusual statement from his cell. He called on his people to start a popular uprising against Israel, to stop negotiations and security coordination and to boycott [Israel]. Barghouti recommended that his people choose nonviolent opposition.'"

What isn't Friedman telling us? Haaretz is a leftist Israel newspaper with a market share of only some 7%. More important, Haaretz did not "report" the lines quoted by Friedman, but rather, they appear in a Haaretz editorial (see: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/listen-to-marwan-barghouti-1.421600).

Did Barghouti call for "nonviolent opposition"? In fact, the Barghouti letter stated (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barghouti-calls-on-palestinians-to-launch-popular-resistance-against-israel-1.420954):

"It is the Palestinian people's right to oppose the occupation in all means."

Sorry, Tom, but "nonviolent opposition" and opposition involving "all means" are different, particularly when opposition involving "all means" is espoused by someone serving a life sentence for the murder of five innocent civilians.

Friedman goes on to say:

"Palestinians need to accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a map delineating how, for peace, they would accept getting back 95 percent of the West Bank and all Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and would swap the other 5 percent for land inside pre-1967 Israel."

Hold on, Tom. What about rock-throwing? Is that also nonviolent? When rocks are thrown at cars on Israeli highways, and the drivers lose control of their vehicles, is that also "nonviolent"?

Friedman continues:

"And, in Egypt, in particular, it is already clear that a key issue in the election will be the peace treaty with Israel. In this context, if Palestinian-Israeli violence erupts in the West Bank, there will be no firewall — the role played by former President Hosni Mubarak — to stop the flames from spreading directly to the Egyptian street."

I get it: Egyptian hatred of Israel stems from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Well, have a gander at a recent article published by the "liberal" Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd entitled "The Jewish Festival of Purim Is Dedicated to Murderous Acts of Vengeance Against Non-Jews" (see: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6223.htm), in which the writer informs us:

"In ancient times, [around] 400 BCE or earlier, groups of Jews lived in Persia under the patronage of Ahasuerus, king of Persia and India. [These Jews] spread evil and destruction, as well as their dishonest and treacherous ways. Thus, they deservedly [incurred] the hatred of the state minister Haman, who incited the king of Persia against them and killed them. He picked a day by lottery on which to massacre the corrupt Jews and thus rid the country of their evil.

. . . .

[Later, the Jews] turned the anniversary of the lottery day, on which they escaped massacre, into a major religious festival... They dedicate this [festival] to murderous [acts of] vengeance against anyone who isn't Jewish.

. . . .

Jewish history documents murderous actions [perpetrated as part] of Purim celebrations. On this festival, the extremists among them used to hunt down or abduct a non-Jew, slaughter him, and then hang him up like a sacrifice to drain his blood.

. . . .

Now that their deeds on this festival have been exposed, the Jews seem to have replaced them with other actions, far more sweeping, [namely] the killing of Palestinians in unjustified military attacks during this holiday."

In short, it's time for Friedman to understand that Israel is going to be hated by its neighbors no matter what it does, and any two-state agreement with the Palestinians, requiring security concessions from Israel, cannot be reached without explicit recognition by the Palestinians of Israel's right to exist.

Nicholas Kristof, "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home": Another Useful Idiot

Walter Duranty was a journalist who served as the Moscow bureau chief of the New York Times from 1922 through 1936 and received a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his stories in 1931 on the Soviet Union. Exalting Stalin, Duranty denied the existence of famine in the Soviet Union, which resulted in the deaths of some 10 million people between 1931 and 1932.

Fast forward to 2009: Columnist Roger Cohen sought to indoctrinate New York Times readers that Iran is "not totalitarian" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02cohen.html).

Today, Nicholas Kristof wishes to convince us that the US has nothing to fear from Egypt's ascendant Muslim Brotherhood. In his latest New York Times opinion piece "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/kristof-joining-a-dinner-in-a-muslim-brotherhood-home.html?hp#comments), Kristof describes his chatter over dinner with an educated, 24-year-old hostess, who seeks to allay Western anxiety over the Brotherhood's goals. Kristof concludes:

"Revolutions are often messy, and it took Americans seven years from their victory in the American Revolution at Yorktown to get a ratified Constitution. Indonesia, after its 1998 revolution, felt very much like Egypt does today. It endured upheavals from a fundamentalist Islamic current, yet it pulled through.

So a bit of nervousness is fine, but let’s not overdo the hand-wringing — or lose perspective. What’s historic in Egypt today is not so much the rise of any one party as the apparent slow emergence of democracy in the heart of the Arab world."

Having read Kristof this morning, I am trying to keep my breakfast down.

Notwithstanding the assurances of Kristof's enchanting hostess, consider a June 8, 2011 interview published by the Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/5404.htm), in which Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, a former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West, stated:

"There will be no contradictions. Our thinking and our affiliation are to the exalted Allah. Our affiliation is to Islam. The global state of Islam is our ideal."

Reflect upon a June 11, 2011 article on the Muslim Brotherhood's Website (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/5432.htm), which declared:

"[However,] we must not impose Islamic shari'a, forcing the people to adopt something about which they are ignorant and with which they are unfamiliar... If we do this, [various] ploys will be used to circumvent it, and there will be hypocrisy. [People] will exhibit Islamic [behavior] only outwardly...

. . . .

"There is no other way but gradual action, preparing the [people's] souls and setting an example, so that faith will enter their hearts... Gradual action does not impose Islam at once, but rather step by step, in order to facilitate understanding, studying, acceptance, and submission."

Listen to a February 7, 2011 interview with Kamal Al-Hilbawi, former speaker of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, on Al-Alam TV (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4990.htm), in which he says:

"We think highly of a country whose president is important, courageous, and has a vision, which he presents in the UN, in Geneva, and everywhere. We think highly of a country that has a wise government, a country that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Chew over the January 30, 2011 interview with Muhammad Ghanem on Al-Alam TV (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4972.htm), during which the Muslim Brotherhood representative in London asserted:

"I am absolutely certain that this revolution will not die, and that the next step must be one of civil disobedience. This civil disobedience will generate strife among the Egyptians. This disobedience must include halting passage through the Suez Canal, stopping the supply of petroleum and natural gas to Israel, and preparing for war with Israel."

Dwell upon the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's political platform (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4970.htm):

"On our part, we believe that the burdens of presidency must not be placed on a woman's shoulders – any more than supervising and leading the army – since they contradict her nature and the rest of her social and humanitarian roles."

And contemplate the words from a 2010 sermon delivered by Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi' (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4650.htm):

"Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. The peoples know well who is [carrying out] resistance and who has sold out the [Palestinian] cause and bargained over it. We say to our brothers the mujahideen in Gaza: be patient, persist in [your jihad], and know that Allah is with you..."

. . . .

The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise."

By now, you've probably got my drift. Kristof, however, doesn't understand that in the Muslim Middle East, prevarication, i.e. taqiyya (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html), is sanctioned from above when seeking to vanquish non-believers.

Yet another useful idiot. It's fast becoming a New York Times tradition . . .