• April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 45,573 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 29 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!

    CLICK THIS PICTURE!!!

  • NO TOLERANCE FOR INTOLERANCE, NO APOLOGY FOR BEING FREE!!!

  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

Egyptian Islamist Promises Jerusalem-Based Caliphate


by Daniel E. Rogell  •  May 8, 2012

An independent Islamist promised that the Muslim Brotherhood would destroy Israel and form a new Caliphate with its capital in Jerusalem, reports the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). The speech, given May 1 before thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members and leaders at Cairo soccer stadium, including MB presidential candidate Mohamed Mursi, contradicts assurances of political pragmatism and moderation by the Islamist group.

“We can see how the dream of the Islamic Caliphate is being realized, Allah willing, by Dr. Mohamed Mursi, and his brothers, his supporters, and his political party. We can see how the great dream, shared by us all … The United States of the Arabs will be restored, Allah willing,” said Safwat Higazi, a self-acknowledged anti-Semite with ties to the Brotherhood.

Higazi also announced that the newly established Islamic state would not have its capital in Egypt’s seat of government in Cairo, or in the Islamic holy cities of Mecca or Medina. Rather, it will be in Jerusalem.

“Our cry shall be ‘Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem,” he said, echoing other speeches he has given on Egyptian television stations for years. Another speaker then led the crowd in a chant of “Banish the sleep from the eyes of the Jews, come on, you lovers of martyrdom, you are all Hamas… Brandish your weapons, say your prayers, and pray to the lord.”

The clip should come as a surprise to no one, Raymond Stock, an American translator and academic who spent two decades in Egypt, told the Jerusalem Post.

“This is what the Muslim Brotherhood really stands for: the extermination of Israel – and Jews everywhere – as well as the spread and control of radical Islam over the world,” he said. “How anyone can fail to see this boggles the mind – yet its denial is virtual dogma in the global mainstream media, US government and Western academia today.”

Posted on 8 May 12 by Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

Israel is under Attack today!!!


Live from Israel, today

Posted on 30 Mar 12 by the United West

Secretary of State Clinton warns against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital


Warning against a law she voted for as a Senator. Apparently working for Barack Obama can cloud one’s mind — and sense of justice. “Clinton, in a Sharp Turnaround, Warns Against Even Symbolically Recognizing Jerusalem as Capital of Israel,” by Rick Richman for the New York Sun, September 27 (thanks to M. D.):

Secretary of State Clinton, in a sharp departure from her stance when she was a senator, is warning that any American action, even symbolically, toward recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel must be avoided for the reason that it would jeopardize the peace process.

Her warnings were issued in a brief she has just filed with the Supreme Court — in which she is arguing that a law she voted for when she was Senator is unconstitutional because it could require the U.S. government to give to an American citizen born at Jerusalem papers showing the birthplace as Israel.

The law requiring the government to issue such documents on request passed the Senate unanimously at a time when Mrs. Clinton was a member. But Presidents Bush and Obama have taken the position that the law infringes on the president’s prerogatives in respect of foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton is being sued by an American youngster, Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born at Jerusalem in 2002 to American parents who want his birthplace to be listed on his passport as Israel.

In addition to citing the peace process as the excuse for not issuing the birth document the Congress wants issued, Mrs. Clinton’s brief adds a new twist to the story of the White House photos first disclosed last month by the New York Sun. The story involved the discovery that even while the White House was fretting over the requirement to list Jerusalem, Israel, as Master Zivotofsky’s birthplace, the White House’s own website was featuring a series of pictures from Vice President Biden’s 2010 trip to the Jewish state and identifying the pictures as showing him at “Jerusalem, Israel.” The Sun queried whether the Zivotofsky case really rose to constitutional proportions, since the White House on its own website treated Jerusalem as being in Israel.

Five days later, the White House removed “Israel” from each of the Biden pictures, without announcing the deletion. The State Department also quietly deleted “Israel” from references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on numerous official documents on its own website, dating from the Bush administration.

Mrs. Clinton’s brief alleges that any American action that “symbolically or concretely” signals it recognizes Jerusalem being in Israel would “critically compromise the ability of the United States to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process.” The brief contends that American policy is to remain neutral over all sovereignty issues, leaving them to negotiations, and that the U.S. thus “does not recognize Palestinian claims to current sovereignty” in the West Bank or Gaza either.

It is that latter statement that requires further revision to the Biden photos on the White House website. Two of the photos from Biden’s trip show him meeting with Palestinian officials in the “Palestinian Territories.”

The proper reference is to “territories” – the word used in U.N. Resolution 242, the foundational document of the “peace process,” which did not affix the adjective “Jordanian” or “Arab” or “Palestinian” to the territories, nor require that “all of the” territories be relinquished by Israel, but rather left an unspecified portion to be traded for a defensible peace. America has never assigned that land to the “Palestinians” and maintains that only negotiations can create Palestinian sovereignty there….

If the Obama administration believes in the neutrality principle it is asserting in the Supreme Court — and that the mere mention of “Jerusalem, Israel” on its website, or putting “Israel” on an individual’s passport, would violate that principle – the question will arise as to whether it will also scrub also the references to the “Palestinian” territories….

Not likely!

Posted on 2 October 11 by JihadWatch

Stand with Israel!!!


Listen to Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu confront the U.N. General Assembly about the lies Iran was spewing to deny the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, on September 24, 2009.

Palestinian TV program: Arab homes will be built at Western Wall, Jews’ praying is “sin and filth”


White House Mischief


The White House engaged in two furtive gambits last week that painfully exposed the Obama administration’s amateurish, deceitful Middle East-Islamic policies.

The first case concerned the thorny issue of Jerusalem’s legal status in American law. In 1947, the United Nations ruled the holy city to be a corpus separatum (Latin for separated body) and not part of any state. All these years later and despite many changes, U.S. policy holds that Jerusalem is an entity unto itself. It ignores that in 1949 the Government of Israel made western Jerusalem its capital and in 1980 it declared the whole of Jerusalem to be the capital. The Executive Branch even ignores U.S. laws from 1995 (requiring a move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem) and 2002 (requiring that U.S. documents recognize Americans born in Jerusalem as being born in Israel). Instead, it insists that the city’s disposition be decided through diplomacy.

Challenging this policy, the American parents of Jerusalem-born Menachem Zivotofsky, demanded on his behalf that his birth certificate and his passport list him as having been born in Israel. When the State Department refused, the parents filed a lawsuit; their case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Things started to get interesting on Aug. 4, when Rick Richman of the New York Sun noted that “The White House acknowledges on its own website that Jerusalem is in Israel—as does the State Department and the CIA on theirs,” undermining the government’s case. Richman pointed to three mentions of “Jerusalem, Israel” in captions to pictures on the White House website in connection with a trip by Joe Biden in March 2010: “Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, Israel”; “Vice President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Israel”; and “Vice President Joe Biden has breakfast with Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair . . . in Jerusalem, Israel.” Richman deemed this wording to be potentially “pivotal evidence” against the government’s case.

One of the pictures on the White House website that mentions “Jerusalem, Israel.”

At 3:22 p.m. on Aug. 9, Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard reiterated Richman’s point by posting the first of those pictures. Two hours and four minutes later, at 5:26 p.m., Halper reported that “the White House has apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel.” The new caption read, “Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem.” Someone on the White House staff hoped to pull a fast one. As James Taranto noted in the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court does not take kindly to such pranks.

Barack Obama continues George W. Bush’s tradition of hosting an iftar at the White House.

The second deceit concerns the guest list for the iftar (breaking-the-Ramadan-fast) dinner at the White House on Aug. 10. The White House published a guest list“of some of the expected attendees” that included 4 members of congress, 36 diplomats, and 11 “community members.” To the relief of those who watch such matters, the list mentioned no American Islamists.

But, it turned out, “some” was a weasel-word. Research by the Investigative Project on Terrorism and others established that the published list did not mention the American Islamists attending that dinner, including Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Mohamed Magid of the Islamic Society of North America, and Awais Sufi of Muslim Advocates.

(Also noteworthy: The White House invited not a single representative of the 12-member non-Islamist group, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, whose mission statement proclaims the goal “to defend the U.S. Constitution, uphold religious pluralism, protect American security and cherish genuine diversity in the practice of our faith of Islam.”)

In combination, two deceits in two days makes one wonder about the morality and even sanity of the White House staff under Barack Obama. Do his munchkins really think they can get away with such sleazy sleights of hand?

One of the Islamists, Awais Sufi, at the White House dinner.

Separately, each of these deceptions warrants condemnation; together, they symbolize the tenor of a failed administration in panic over its lowest-ever poll ratings (43.4 percent approval according to RealClearPolitics.com‘s aggregation of surveys) and trying to revive its fortunes by whatever means necessary, even if its dishonesty might expose it to ridicule.

More specifically, the two incidents point to the bankruptcy of the administration’s Middle East and Islamic policies. The arrogance of 2009 remains in place, now tempered by failure and desperation.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Aug. 16, 2011 update: For a listing of U.S. government mentions of “Jerusalem, Israel,” see an amicus brief to the Supreme Court compiled by the Zionist Organization of America, dated Aug. 5, 2011.

Related Topics:  Jerusalem, Muslims in the United States, US policy receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes’ free mailing list

Posted in:  Daniel Pipes

2 Netanyahu Interview Arab Revolution started in Iran, Israel is only place where Arabs Have Rights


YouTube. Jerusalem. 4000 Years in 5 Minutes


Posted by Editor

Complicating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the bald-faced lies that Jews in Israel are living on stolen Arab land. When  people hear former journalist Helen Thomas saying “the Jews should go back to Germany and Poland”, or similar sentiments echoed by the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas or Hamas spokes-thugs, a good percentage get confused — or convinced, The truth is that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East and founded Jerusalem.

The modern Jewish state is also the only one that has guaranteed freedom of religion and equal status to all. But don’t take my word for it: watch the video.

Face to face, Netanyahu rejects Obama on borders


May 20 08:41 PM US/Eastern
By BEN FELLER
AP White House Correspondent

President Barack Obama, right, meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,…

President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel…

President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel…WASHINGTON (AP) – In a blunt display of differences, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the idea of using his country’s 1967 boundaries as the basis for a neighboring Palestinian state on Friday, declaring his objections face-to-face to President Barack Obama who had raised the idea just 24 hours earlier in an effort to revive stalled Mideast peace talks.

Though the two leaders, meeting in the Oval Office, found cordial and predictable agreement on the other central element that Obama outlined in his Mideast address Thursday—ironclad Israeli security alongside a Palestinian nation—progress on the bedrock issue of borders seemed as elusive as ever.

In his speech, Obama gave unprecedented prominence to a long-held U.S. stand that Israel opposes: A Palestinian state should be shaped around the border lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel took control of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. An essential part of what Obama proposed was that Israelis and Palestinians would also have to agree to swaps of land to account for Israeli settlements and other current conditions, a point Netanyahu failed to mention.

“While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines,” Netanyahu declared. “These lines are indefensible.”

As they sat together for public comments after their private meeting, Obama sought to put the disagreement in the best light, and in the context of a relationship of two allies—one, however, showing strains of impatience.

“Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language,” Obama said. “That’s going to happen between friends.”

He quickly added in a reassurance to Netanyahu: “What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.”

Obama and Netanyahu showed cordiality before the cameras. The president listened intently, his hand cupping his chin, as Netanyahu spoke passionately about his country’s plight and how the path to peace should run.

“Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide,” Netanyahu said, emphasizing his words with his hands. “It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.”

Obama, frustrated by Mideast peace talks that have collapsed, is seeking to get both sides to contend with the issues of borders and security. Even progress on those enormous fronts would still leave unsettled the fate of Jerusalem and of Palestinian refugees. Netanyahu underscored just how difficult that last issue is alone, declaring that Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel as part of any peace plan.

“It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen,” he said. “And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Netanyahu’s comments with Obama were tantamount to “his total rejection of the Obama vision and speech.”

“Without Mr. Netanyahu committing to two states on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, he is not a partner to the peace process,” Erekat said. “I think, when President Obama gave him a choice between dictation and negotiations, he chose dictation.”

On the border matter, the Obama administration up until now has tried to summarize the positions of each party but had not taken a position itself. Obama’s direct reference to the 1967 borders and land swaps in his speech incensed Israel, adding tension to the atmosphere of Netanyahu’s visit.

As Obama pushes for a return to negotiations that he championed prominently last year, that prospect seems bleak.

Netanyahu said his nation could not negotiate with a Palestinian unity government that includes the radical Hamas movement, which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. He said that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had to choose between continuing the deal with Hamas and making peace with Israel.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Netanyahu’s rejection of a return to 1967 lines was “clear evidence that the negotiations option was a waste of time.”

The comments from Netanyahu and Obama, after a longer-than-scheduled meeting that lasted over an hour-and-a-half, shed little light on how the peace process will advance.

The two leaders did not take questions from the press, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was unable in a subsequent briefing to point to any concrete signs of progress.

Netanyahu is to address Congress on Tuesday to press Israel’s position.

On Thursday, Netanyahu was informed shortly before Obama’s speech of its contents by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to U.S. officials. Netanyahu sought in vain to get the border language removed from the speech, the officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive diplomatic exchange.

___Associated Press writers Erica Werner in Washington, Amy Teibel traveling with Netanyahu, Karin Laub in Ramallah, West Bank and Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City contributed to this report.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Obama’s abandonment of America


http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/obamas-abandonment-of-america.php

May 20, 2011, 7:21 AM

I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today’s column for the Jerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn’t want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he’ll do by Tuesday?

Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.

Quite simply, Obama’s speech represents the effective renunciation of the US’s right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region – first and foremost, the US’s interest in securing its national security.

Obama’s renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:

First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: “Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”

Then he said, “Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.”

While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, “a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.”

And you know what that means. If the US doesn’t end the “spiral of division,” (sounds sort of like “spiral of violence” doesn’t it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

How do we know this is Obama’s plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the “spiral of division,” he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.

And of course, intimations of Obama’s plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:

“There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.”

So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.

And he also said that the US will “support the governments that will be elected later this year” in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.

Then there is the way Obama abandoned US allies Yemen and Bahrain in order to show the US’s lack of hypocrisy. As he presented it, the US will not demand from its enemies Syria and Iran that which it doesn’t demand from its friends.

While this sounds fair, it is anything but fair. The fact is that if you don’t distinguish between your allies and your enemies then you betray your allies and side with your enemies. Bahrain and Yemen need US support to survive. Iran and Syria do not. So when he removes US support from the former, his action redounds to the direct benefit of the latter.

I hope the US Navy’s 5th Fleet has found alternate digs because Obama just opened the door for Iran to take over Bahrain. He also invited al Qaeda – which he falsely claimed is a spent force – to take over Yemen.

Beyond his abandonment of Bahrain and Yemen, in claiming that the US mustn’t distinguish between its allies and its foes, Obama made clear that he has renounced the US’s right to have and pursue national interests. If you can’t favor your allies against your enemies then you cannot defend your national interests. And if you cannot defend your national interests then you renounce your right to have them.

As for Iran, in his speech, Obama effectively abandoned the pursuit of the US’s core interest of preventing nuclear proliferation. All he had to say about Iran’s openly genocidal nuclear program is, “Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known.”

Well so is my opposition to all of that, and so is yours. But unlike us, Obama is supposed to do something about it. And by putting the gravest threat the US presently faces from the Middle East in the passive voice, he made clear that actually, the US isn’t going to do anything about it.

In short, every American who is concerned about the security of the United States should be livid. The US President just abandoned his responsibility to defend the country and its interests in the interest of coddling the US’s worst enemies.

AS FOR ISRAEL, in a way, Obama did Israel a favor by giving this speech. By abandoning even a semblance of friendliness, he has told us that we have nothing whatsoever to gain by trying to make him like us. Obama didn’t even say that he would oppose the Palestinians’ plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution in support for Palestinian independence. All he said was that it is a dumb idea.

Obama sided with Hamas against Israel by acting as though its partnership with Fatah is just a little problem that has to be sorted out to reassure the paranoid Jews. Or as he put it, “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”

Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It’s in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.”

Irrelevant and untrue.

It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don’t want peace. That’s why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

As for being untrue, Obama’s speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.

The of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:

He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;

He didn’t say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;

He again ignored Bush’s 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;

He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;

He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;

He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley – without which it is powerless against invasion – by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.

Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words – security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it – were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.

Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.”

What does that mean “with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?”

It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.

All of this means is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was planning to be nice to Obama, and pretend that everything is terrific with the administration, he should just forget about it. He needn’t attack Obama. Let the Republicans do that.

But both in his speech to AIPAC and his address to Congress, he should very forthrightly tell the truth about the nature of the populist movements in the Middle East, the danger of a nuclear Iran, the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction; the lie of the so-called peace process; the importance of standing by allies; and the critical importance of a strong Israel to US national security.

He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing by the rules that Obama is trying to set for him.

 Posted on May 20, 2011 at 7:21 AM

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers

%d bloggers like this: