| "Conquest of the heart" (Hurriyet) Posted: 07 Sep 2012 02:00 PM PDT Another home run by Burak Bekdil: About three months ago, Turkey's top Islamic cleric, Professor Mehmet Görmez, introduced a new understanding of the concept of "conquest." According to Professor Görmez, "In Turkish history there has never been occupation... but there has always been conquest."
What distinction was Görmez trying to make from taking a foreign land by force? According to Professor Görmez, what the Turks have done throughout history was not "[occupy] lands or destroy cities and castles," but was simply "the conquest of the heart." In other words, the Turks had not occupied, for instance, Constantinople, but had merely "conquered the Byzantine hearts" there. How very romantic!
And what was the fancy term the head of the Turkish ulama deemed most appropriate to describe the Turks' millennia-long westbound journeys? According to Professor Görmez, "One of the two pillars of conquest [of the heart] is to open up minds to Islam and hearts to the Quran." An interesting view.
What was it when Christian armies took the lands the Turks had taken from Christians? Occupation. What is it when Turks take lands by force? Conquest of the heart. What is the difference? Because when we occupy we do not occupy, we benevolently open up non-Muslim minds to Islam and non-Muslim hearts to the Quran. Very well. But then why did the non-Muslims whose hearts must have been conquered by the Muslim Ottomans remain non-Muslim for centuries and, at the first opportunity, revolt against their benevolent conquerors for freedom?
...
Are Turks considerate of "the other"? Nearly one in every five Turks living in Germany thinks Jews are inferior people, and one in every 10 thinks Christians are inferior people. But more than 90 percent of them consider themselves religious.
The conquest of the heart... And the heart of the matter: According to the same survey, nearly half of Turks say they hope there will be more Muslims than Christians in Germany in the future. The conquest of the heart.
History tells us that the missionary mindset is not specific to Muslims. But it just sounds pathetic if 1.3 million Turks want to make 80 million-plus Germans Muslim, or if a handful of Hindus wanted to make America Hindu, or if a few Christians want to make China Christian.
By the way, why do the 6.5 million or so Jews not want to make the 300 million-or-so people of the United States overwhelmingly Jewish? Read the whole thing. (h/t Herb) 
 |
| Friday links Posted: 07 Sep 2012 12:45 PM PDT From Ian:
Latma Tawil Fadiha discusses Iran and Islamophobia British MP: South African Boycott of Israel Like Nazi Boycott of Jewish Shops "In a speech to the South African Board of Jewish Deputies last week, Denis MacShane (Labour), a Member of Parliament in Britain said that South Africa's ban of Israeli products is similar to Nazi Germany's boycott of Jewish products, and that criticism of Israel as an apartheid state is meant to bring about Israel's demise." Judith Butler, renounce the Adorno Prize "Refuse the Adorno Prize, apologize to the Berlin Pride Civil Courage Prize, and make a public confession to the effect that you have misjudged the situation and misled people seriously. Maybe even give us some reflections on how we can raise the many problems manifest in current Islamic religiosity (e.g., Hamas and Hizbullah) constructively.
Alternatively, take the prize money, and spend it on coming to Israel for a year and speaking primarily with people who disagree with you. You're very smart, you'll actually learn a lot." Fayyad's blood-soaked overdraft "It is not clear whether Fayyad will make good on his offer to step down. If I had a nickel for every time PA President Mahmoud Abbas reneged on his threat to quit, I'd be as rich as a suicide bomber.
But does it really matter?
Evidence repeatedly suggests that the honchos in Ramallah are no different from their Hamas counterparts in Gaza in terms of their ultimate aim to annihilate the Jewish state. As long as this remains the case, no democratic country in the world has any business believing there is room to negotiate with them – and certainly no reason to give them even one more dime to fund their program." Intra-Palestinian Arab Conflicts - The Great Divide by David Singer Instead of blaming Israel for lack of peace, maybe they should try to get along with each other. 1948 Arabs don't get along with 1967 ones. Ramadan visitors may indicate that some PA Arabs want neither PLO nor Hamas.
"Are we indeed witnessing the genesis of a people movement not marching in step with the declared political aims of either Hamas or the PLO - as evidenced by what occurred at the easing of entry restrictions enabling 120000 PA Arabs to visit Israel during their holy month of Ramadan?"
"Denied any vote for six years - the 'West Bank' Arabs had voted with their feet - indicating to their political masters that the time had come to narrow the divide between the 1948 Arabs and the 1967 Arabs - not by trying to eliminate the State of Israel, but co-existing peacefully with it." Congressman confirms Netanyahu-Shapiro spat Republican Mike Rogers says Netanyahu expressed "elevated concerns" over Iranian threat to US ambassador Shapiro.
"Yedioth Aharonoth published on its front page last Friday a report of the exchange, saying that "sparks flew" during the meeting.
Two days later Shapiro went on Channel 2 and denied the story, characterizing it as a "silly" report that "did not reflect what actually occurred in the meeting."
Rogers said that it was "very, very clear" from the meeting that the Israelis "had lost their patience with the administration. There was no doubt." "Right now the Israelis don't believe that the administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the [nuclear] program is progressing," he said." Day After DNC Jerusalem Fiasco, State Department Still Refuses to Name Israel's Capital "A day after the Democratic party rammed through an amendment to its platform to retain its previous reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell refused to acknowledge the city as the capital of Israel upon being questioned by a reporter." Palestinians fire two rockets into western Negev Kassams from Gaza Strip land in open areas; red alert sirens heard in Hof Ashkelon Euro imams, rabbis pledge zero tolerance for hate preachers Toulouse Chief Rabbi Harald Weill regretted that no local Muslim leader contacted him to condemn the murders at the Jewish school there last March, but he did not want to give up hope. Iran sends elite troops to aid Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria Northeastern University Chaplain Encouraged Students to Support Convicted Terrorists (Video) "For the past 15 years Abdullah Faarruq was the Muslim chaplain at Northeastern University in Boston. This week, Faarruq was revealed to be an Islamic extremist who encouraged acts of violence and who has publicly supported multiple convicted terrorists." World's first medical smartphone Israeli engineering is behind LifeWatch V, a phone that performs and analyzes a range of self-tests and generates medical reports.
Don't have a stethoscope handy? A thermometer? A pedometer? You won't need any of these devices to measure your heart rate, temperature and daily steps – plus many more health and fitness parameters – if you have LifeWatch V, the world's first medical smartphone. Israel Daily Picture EArtHqUAkE! in the Holy Land in 1927.  85 years ago a powerful earthquake struck Eretz Yisrael. With its epicenter located in the northern Dead Sea area, the towns of Jericho, Jerusalem, Nablus (Shechem) and Tiberias were badly hit. An estimated 500 people were killed in those locations. 
 |
| Colbert Report on DNC God/Jerusalem debacle Posted: 07 Sep 2012 11:15 AM PDT He scores points against everyone, but it is funny: 
 |
| Interview with a true Muslim Zionist - an IDF major Posted: 07 Sep 2012 09:45 AM PDT From Israel HaYom:  "I am the operations officer at the IDF ground forces training base at Tze'elim," Ala Wahib says at the start of our conversation, his eyes twinkling with excitement. "I am like the mother and father of that place," he adds. "The only thing is that I don't really have anyone to share it with, so I make sure to pat myself on the back every now and again, and say 'dude, you're awesome. Look how far you've come.'"
The truth is that he deserves these accolades. It is not every day that a Muslim Arab, hailing from a village whose residents largely do not recognize Israel's right to exist, comes to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. And he doesn't only serve: Major Wahib, 32, is currently the highest ranking Muslim officer in the IDF. He is enormously patriotic, a true Zionist. Precisely the kind of person we like to see lighting the torches during the national Independence Day ceremony every year.
"In my village, they can't understand what could possibly motivate me to protect a country that is not my own. In the army there are people who know me and would go all the way with me, but there are those who don't know me and don't really know how to relate to me," he says.
So why did he decide to give this interview, with his face exposed and his full name in print? "Because it is important to me to show the Arab public what they are missing. There are quite a lot of people [in the Arab community] who want to enlist, but they are afraid and they don't know if they will be accepted by their environment. It is important to me to show them the road I've traveled, and to make them understand that it is possible." Regardless, he doesn't take his hand off his gun for a second during the entire interview. "It is my security. It is my only means of protecting myself," he says.
His Hebrew is fluent, without a hint of an accent, and he could easily be mistaken for an average Tel Avivian. A map of the training grounds hangs on his office wall, and his green eyes constantly sweep it, making sure again and again that everything is under control. Every once in a while a soldier will knock on the door, asking permission for this or that mission, and one of them, noticing the newspaper crew, can't resist and says "write that he is the best commander there is." Wahib tries to hide an embarrassed smile and tells the soldier to get his backside back to the field.
He describes himself as a "Zionist Israeli Arab." Read the whole thing. 
 |
| CSIS releases report on scenarios for attacking Iran Posted: 07 Sep 2012 08:10 AM PDT The Center for Strategic and International studies just released a report detailing a number of scenarios of either the US or Israel attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Here's the executive summary:
• Over the past couple of months, speculation about a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has made headlines around the globe. This report addresses how the U.S. could take the lead in carrying out a preventive Military Strike against Iran If all peaceful options have been exhausted and Iran has left no other means to convince it to stop or change its course in pursuing nuclear weapons . It also examines how the US could provide a defense umbrella against any Iranian air and missile retaliation that would be aimed at U.S. military targets and allies in the region, in particular the GCC states.
• A key question arises is what should the objectives of a military strike be? To halt the Iranian nuclear program? To set it back five years or for one year? This criteria is the key to defining the force allocation required to achieve a successful mission against Iran's nuclear facilities.
• The study shows that the initial strike should be against key Iranian nuclear enrichment and research facilities, ballistic missile basis located around the country, numerous mobile ballistic missile launchers dispersed around Iran and main ballistic missile production facilities. At the same time, it shows that the payloads required to hit underground enrichment facilities with a high level of damage, to carry out the scale of initial and follow-up attacks, and providing resources such as near real time intelligence required to detect and destroy other potentially lethal Iranian military weapons, for instance ballistic missiles that could be used in a retaliation, can only be carried out by the United States.
• An initial U.S. strike will require a large force allocation consisting of Defensive Counterair and Offensive Counterair Operations, such as the main Bomber Force, the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense System, Escort aircraft for the protection of the Bombers, Electronic Warfare for detection and jamming purposes, Fighter Sweep and Combat Air Patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.
• While such first strike will try to be as effective as possible, the U.S. would be the only country that has the air power, support capability, and mix of sea-air forces in the Gulf to continue a sustained campaign over a period of time and restrike after an initial battle damage assessment it is found that further strike sorties are required.
Several other key points are made in the analysis:
• The aging Iranian airforce will definitely be no match against the U.S. and even the GCC airforces. In addition the Iranian Air Defense systems do not have the Command Control Communications and Intelligence required to detect, track and shoot down the US advanced military combat aircraft. However U.S. planners will definitely take all operational planning precautions necessary to ensure that both the Iranian Airforce and Air Defense system are ineffective and all U.S. combat aircraft have a high probability of survival throughout.
• U.S. officials are working with allies in the Gulf to develop the capability to defeat the threat Iran poses to the Gulf, allied territory, and the flow of trade and energy exports GCC countries worry that during a crisis, Iran could try to prevent their ships from traversing the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off their oil export business.
• The only effective counter-strike capability Iran has other than asymmetric warfare in the Gulf, and the use of proxies like Hezbollah, is their Ballistic Missile Force. A massive retaliation strike with whatever launching sites that have survived the U.S. first strike could still cause quite a considerable damage to the GCC states, in energy, finance and various other critical infrastructure centers.
• The U.S. is currently involved in building a Defensive Shield against a massive Iranian Ballistic Missile attack targeted at the GCC states. The defensive shield consists of a Multi-Tier Ballistic Missile Defense System consisting of Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) and Patriot Advanced Capability, PAC-3, missile systems supported with the most advanced Radar and Command and Control facilities.
• Ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems have been provided to Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman, as well as stationing Aegis-equipped warships in the waters of the Arabian Gulf. The U.S. has been developing an integrated early warning radar system across the GCC states that could help U.S. and GCC forces to quickly respond to an Iranian missile attack.
• Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran's efforts for a year or two.
• Finally, the fact that US has the capability to carry out preventive strikes does not mean it should not seek to negotiate an end to the threatening aspects of Iran's nuclear programs. The brief shows just how dangerous any war in the Gulf could be to the world's economy – although Iran is more vulnerable than any of its Southern Gulf neighbors.
• The U.S. also needs its Gulf allies as key partners and must consider the "law of unintended consequences." Preventive military strikes could push the presently volatile middle east region into a war with far reaching global political, military, and economic consequences. The report gives two scenarios for an Israeli strike. One is a conventional strike using aircraft. the other is using tactical nuclear weapons as the only means to attack the underground facilities.  It is possible that Israel will carry out a strike against Iranian Nuclear Facilities, if the U.S. does not, with the objective of either destroying the program or delaying it for some years. The success of the Strike Mission will be measured by how much of the Enrichment program has it destroyed, or the number of years it has delayed Iranian acquisition of enough Uranium or Plutonium from the Arak reactor to build a nuclear bomb.
• We conclude that a military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route. However, the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate
.
• The U.S. would certainly be perceived as being a part of the conspiracy and having assisted and given Israel the green light, whether it did or had no part in it whatsoever. This would undermine the U.S. objectives in increasing stability in the region and bringing about a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It will also harm for a very long period of time relations between the U.S. and its close regional allies.
• Another scenario is in using Low Yield Earth Penetrating Nuclear Weapons as a substitute for conventional weapons to attack deeply buried nuclear facilities in Iran. Some believe that these are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels.
• The U.S. would not allow any other country, even a strong ally such as Israel, to use them, unless another country had used nuclear weapons against the U.S. and its allies.
• A strike by Israel on Iran will give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism. The regional security consequences will be catastrophic. Their conventional scenario estimates a strike force of some 95 planes. In essence over 25% of the high end combat aircraft of Israeli Airforce and 100% of the Tankers will have to be allocated for this mission.
• One strike would not necessarily be enough to achieve the mission objectives. Strike aircraft need to return for another strike. This would put a heavy burden on the Israeli Airforce.
• We can conclude that a military strike by the Israeli Airforce against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible, however, it would be complex and high risk in the operational level and would lack any assurances of a high mission success rate.
• Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional consequences. U.S. expects Israel to be responsible and not to carry out such a strike.
• Air to ground strike mission can be difficult to implement and would involve some risks. Flying on a very tight route, practically hugging the Turkish-Syrian borders. Aerial refueling along the way and avoid being detected by Turkey, Syria and the U.S. Flying down to S/L when in Iranian territory, avoid being detected by flying low and applying ECM all the way. If detected by Iranian air defense the strike formation should be prepared to encounter interceptors, and to encountering firing of
ground based SAMs. It is a very interesting, if sobering, report. (h/t Challah Hu Akbar) 
 |
| Those Egyptian checkpoints in the Sinai Posted: 07 Sep 2012 06:45 AM PDT From Egypt Independent: Anonymous gunmen attacked the Rayesa checkpoint outside Arish in Sinai on Friday morning, the 34th such attack in the last 19 months.
Security forces exchanged fire with the assailants, who fled. There were no injuries.
The troops combed the surrounding areas, in addition to inspecting the passing cars and questioning their occupants.
Rayesa checkpoint has been attacked 34 times since the beginning of the 25 January revolution, most recently on 31 August.
The checkpoint is located on the international road leading to Rafah at the east entrance of Arish. It is manned by joint forces of the police and Armed Forces.
A number of checkpoints in Sinai were targeted in August. Egyptian authorities have speculated that radical groups are behind these attacks. Checkpoints? You mean, where the military checks to make sure that people aren't transporting weapons and explosives? Aren't they, like, violations of international humanitarian law or UN resolutions or something? I was so sure that checkpoints are illegal and immoral. Terrorists must have the right to freely travel to their intended targets. It's a human right. And people being forced to add extra minutes to their trips in order for their cars to be checked for guns and explosives is a heinous crime. I know I've read that somewhere. Ah - here's one place, lightly edited: Checkpoints: A Violation of Human Rights
Sky McLaughlin
...The very concept of the checkpoint itself stands in gross violation of the human rights of the people. Each human being should be guaranteed the right to emotional and psychological health and security. However the symbolism of these checkpoints has severe psychological repercussions on the people. The implication is that citizens are entirely too dangerous and evil to be allowed the freedom of movement in their own country, or their neighbour's. The damaging impacts on the psyche, not to mention self-esteem, particularly of young people, are tremendous.
Freedom of movement and the right to physical safety are just two of the fundamental human rights violated by the checkpoints. People are not free to travel from region to region in their own country, and this has far-reaching effects on the relations of the family. Families are split and divided, and cannot join together to provide emotional support and comfort during this time of tragedy and suffering. Fear has become a permanent part of their psyche, as they constantly worry about the time when there may be an emergency in their family, whom they cannot reach in time. See? I knew that human rights activists were against all checkpoints, everywhere. Good thing those activists in Egypt are attacking them by gunfire. They are the true human rights defenders. 
 |
| The difference on Iran between the two parties' platforms Posted: 07 Sep 2012 04:40 AM PDT This week I posted a side-by-side comparison between the Democratic and Republican platforms' positions on the Middle East. The most important difference between the two is not rhetoric about Jerusalem or the peace process. It is not even the very obvious difference between how they discuss the upheavals in the Arab world. The critical difference between the two is a single word. The Democrats say "The President is committed to using all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."  The Republicans say "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability threatens America, Israel, and the world. … America must lead the effort to prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons capability. There is a huge distinction between Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and it possessing nuclear weapons capability. As I have reported, a recent AP article says: Iran could be shaping its nuclear ambitions after Japan, which has the full scope of nuclear technology - including the presumed ability to produce warhead-grade material - but has stopped short of actually producing a weapon. It creates, in effect, a de facto nuclear power with all the parts but just not pieced together....Following Japan's path would allow Iran to push their nuclear technology to the limit while being able to claim it has adhered to its international pledge not to develop a bomb. Yesterday, evidence came out that the Obama administration's "red line" might very well be right at the last screw before a bomb is physically built. Jeffrey Goldberg has the text of a must-read radio interview with Mike Rogers who witnessed the meeting between Netanyahu and US Ambassador Shapiro that reportedly turned into a shouting match. Netanyahu was asking for the US to define what it considers "red lines" for Iran, and the US is refusing to do so - indicating that the "red line" really might be as late as the last screw. And Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, seems to share Netanyahu's frustration: Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing." This single word, "capability," is not just a difference between platforms - it is a chasm. The real problem is that all of the "capability" red lines might very well be crossed too soon for the differences between Republicans and Democrats to practically matter. 
 |
| Mondoweiss passes a message from Hamas to "Occupy Charlotte" Posted: 07 Sep 2012 02:29 AM PDT Mondoweiss' assistant editor Allison Deger has posted this on the site: The open letter below was posted anonymously the online forum Paste Bin, on September 3, 2012. I verified the authenticity with Stanley L. Cohen Esq. who indicated Hanneya drafted the statement with the intent of Cohen reading the letter in Charlotte, North Carolina, to Occupy Charlotte on Sunday, September 2, 2012, one night before the Democratic National Convention. Due to extenuating circumstances, Cohen did not read the letter. The letter starts off and ends this way: To the Bradley Manning Peace Camp at the Democratic Party Convention in North Carolina:
I wish that I could be with you today to read these words to you myself, but obviously I cannot, as I remain unwelcome in the United States. Instead I have asked my friend of many years Stanley Cohen to deliver this message of solidarity on my behalf.
I send the heartfelt greetings of the Palestinian people, as we salute you in your fight against the American military machine, against its secrets and lies, and against its vision of an American world order maintained through coercion and control. You bring your protest straight to the heart of the political system, there in Charlotte, and we are there with you in spirit, we Occupy Charlotte with you!
[...]
The American political process is now a global process—and we watch it from our corner of the world, waiting for some sign of change at the top. But meanwhile, it is the growing force from below that gives us hope. This movement is a global movement--our numbers are vast, we are legion, and we do not forget.
Thank you.
Ismail Hanneya
Prime Minister
Gaza
September 1, 2012 Whether the letter is legitimate or not, we have seen Hamas seeks to use the radical Left as its partner in destroying Israel. Either way, the MW loonies believe it is true. This incident shows that not only do the Leftists happily accept Hamas' immoral support, but Mondoweiss - without so much as a hint of a disclaimer - actively acts as Hamas' message boy! The comments are almost tearfully worshipful and thankful that MW is spreading Haniyeh's wisdom to the West. (One member and Hamas groupie, Joe Catron, who took the photo of Haniyeh that accompanies the article, actually says that Hamas "includes a liberal element" and only knee-jerk Zionists consider it terrorist.) To Mondoweiss, Israel is the enemy that must be destroyed and Hamas is the friend who must be embraced. Meanwhile, every day Hamas' own official Al Qassam Martyrs' Brigades website has articles supporting terror attacks against civilians and fondly remembering past attacks, complete with photos of grieving Israelis and coffins of Jewish victims of Hamas. (h/t Max) 
 |
The Republicans say "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability threatens America, Israel, and the world. … America must lead the effort to prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons capability. 
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה