Monday, August 29, 2016
Fwd: ZOA Criticizes Obama's Claim that Israeli Hebron Housing Policy "Corrosive" to Peace
From: "Zionist Organization of America" <info@zoa.org>
Date: Aug 29, 2016 1:43 PM
Subject: ZOA Criticizes Obama's Claim that Israeli Hebron Housing Policy "Corrosive" to Peace
To: "Subscribers" <faigerayzel@gmail.com>
Cc:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fwd: Daniel Greenfield's article: Nation Building or Islam Building
From: "Sultan Knish" <noreply+feedproxy@google.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Daniel Greenfield's article: Nation Building or Islam Building
To: <faigerayzel@gmail.com>
Cc:
Daniel Greenfield's article: Nation Building or Islam Building |  |
| Nation Building or Islam Building Posted: 28 Aug 2016 07:55 PM PDT Nation-building has become a very controversial term. And with good reason. Our conviction that we can reconstruct any society into another America is unrealistic. It ignores our own exceptionalism and overlooks the cultural causes of many conflicts. It assumes that a change of government and open elections can transform a tribal Islamic society into America. They can't and won't.  building. Nation-building in Germany and Japan meant identifying a totalitarian ideology, isolating its proponents from political power and recreating a formerly totalitarian state as an open society. That is the opposite of what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, never mind Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and all the rest. We did temporarily pursue de-Baathification in Iraq. But the Baathists were just Saddam's cult of personality. Saddam was a problem in Iraq. But he wasn't the problem in Iraq. His rule was a symptom of the real problem which was the divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The real problem was Islam. Because we failed to recognize that, de-Baathification failed. The Baathists just folded themselves into ISIS. The Sunni-Shiite war went on even without Saddam. Today Sunnis and Shiites are still killing each other in Iraq much as they had for a long time. We have boiled this war down to ISIS, but ISIS, like Saddam is just another symptom of the political violence and divisiveness inherent in Islam. Instead of secularizing Iraq, our efforts at democracy only heightened divisions along religious lines. The "Lebanon" model for Iraq with power sharing arrangements between Sunnis and Shiites was doomed. Iraq's first election was dominated by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. If that name rings a bell, it should. It came out of Iran. You know, the original Islamic Revolution. The "free" election had given a boost to an Islamic terror group whose goal was the creation of an Islamic State in Iraq. The bloodiest days of the Iraq War actually came when two sets of Islamic terror groups fighting to create an Islamic State began killing each other… and us. We know one of those groups today as ISIS. The other group is the Iraqi government. And a decade later, they're still killing each other. Instead of nation-building in Iraq, we practiced Islam-building. Iraq's constitution made Islam the official religion and the fundamental source of legislation. Its first real law was that, "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established." The new Iraq we had built was an Islamic State. We did no better in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan whose constitution declared much the same thing. Its first parliamentary elections saw victories for the National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan and the Islamic Society. As in Iraq and Syria, the distinctions between the bad Islamists and the good Islamists were often fuzzy at best. We had replaced the bad Islamist warlords who raped and murdered their enemies with the good Islamist warlords who raped and murdered their enemies. Our nation-building had created an Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and an Islamic State in Iraq. It was no wonder that the fighting never stopped. Matters grew much worse with the Arab Spring when Obama and Hillary's Islam-building project flipped countries that had been democratic and secular in the loosest sense into the tar pit of political Islam. Coptic Christians were massacred and churches were burned in Egypt. The Christian communities in Iraq and Syria were threatened with annihilation. The Jewish community in Yemen may be close to disappearing entirely. The Yazidis were raped and murdered on a genocidal scale by the Islamic State. But in many cases they were just collateral damage from fighting between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, and among Sunni Islamists battling each other for dominance. The ugliest part of Islam-building was that the resulting conflicts between Islamists and secularists in Egypt and Tunisia highlighted starkly just how wrong our policy was. Instead of backing secular and democratic forces, Obama had thrown in with Islamists. And even after the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown in Egypt, his administration continued advocating on behalf of its Islamic reign of terror. If we had practiced actual nation-building, then we would have identified Islamic tribalism as the central corrosive force in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Islamic political movements as the totalitarian threat in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Our efforts would have been directed at isolating them and keeping them out of power while working to democratize and secularize these countries on the old Turkish model. It might not have worked, but at least it would have been nation-building, not Islam-building. Nation-building might very well have failed. America doesn't have infinite resources and the lives of our soldiers are precious. Assuming that we can upend radically different societies is excessively optimistic. But we didn't even try. What we have been doing in this century isn't nation building. Instead we've been empowering our enemies. We've been sticking our hands into Islamist snake pits and playing, "Find the Muslim moderate" and refusing to learn any better no matter how many times we get bitten. We have been perfectly happy to help the Islamic terrorists that our soldiers were shooting at last week so long as their leader signed some sort of accord paying lip service to equality yesterday. We didn't just get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, but with former affiliates of Al Qaeda and current proxies of Iran. We allied with the Sunni and Shiite Islamist murderers of American soldiers in Iraq. And all we got for it was more violence, chaos and death. Even without Islam, ethnic and tribal divisions would have made nation-building into a difficult challenge. But Islam-building didn't just leave wrecked societies, but terror threats. Tensions between Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds wouldn't have led to massacres in Paris and Nice. Only Islam could do that. Islam takes local conflicts and makes them global. That's why disputes over the authority of the House of Saud led to the mass murder of thousands of people in New York or why Arab attacks on Israel became a burning international issue. Or why Sunni and Shiite feuds in Iraq and Syria led to a massacre of attendees at a rock concert in Paris. That is also why the combination of Islam and politics in any form is an existential threat to us. Not only should we not be subsidizing it in any way, shape or form, but we should be doing our best to stamp it out. If we must have any form of nation-building, it should be the building of secular nations in which Islam is isolated and detached from any political involvement. We have two options for preventing the spread of Islamic political violence into our countries. The first is a ban on Muslim immigration. The second is a ban on Muslim politics. The former has been dubbed isolationism and the latter nation-building. Neither term is truly accurate, but they capture the essence of the choice. We however have chosen a choice that is far worse than either. We have opened our doors to Muslim migration while opening Muslim countries to further Islamic political involvement. We have Islamized terror states and ourselves. Is it any wonder that we suffer from a severe Islamic terror threat? Open borders for Islamic terror and Islam-building have led to our current state of national insecurity. We have made the world more dangerous by backing Islamic politics and we have made our countries more dangerous by welcoming in Muslim migrants to be indoctrinated into terror by Islamist organizations. The more we build up Islam, the more we destroy ourselves.        |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Sultan Knish . To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Fwd: Don't let our youth fall into this latest honey trap! Efrat under the State of Palestine? From Women in Green
Bsd
Deception against the enemy is allowed under Islam. It is call Taqiya.
From: <womeningreen@womeningreen.org>
Date: Aug 27, 2016 3:17 PM
Subject: Don't let our youth fall into this latest honey trap!
To: <womeningreen@womeningreen.org>
Cc:
Instructions for unsubscribing can be found in the footer of this message.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
The Devil is in the details
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-devil-is- in-the-details/2016/08/25/
Rabbi Riskin was surprised to learn that a peace plan he supported
would make him a Palestinian citizen and thoroughly endanger the
existence of the state of Israel.
By: Stephen Leavitt
Here are some paragraphs:
For the entire article please click on:
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-devil-is- in-the-details/2016/08/25/
I was shocked to read last week in the Jerusalem Post that Rabbi
Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, is supporting a radical and
dangerous leftwing "peace plan," and worse, this plan is being
promoted to the youths of Efrat and other settlements.
I met and spoke with Rabbi Riskin a few times this week and he wanted
to emphasize that he insists he "never accepted the plan."
Rabbi Riskin said he was approached and was presented with a germ of
an idea for a peace initiative, but was not made aware of any clear
formulation of the terms of the plan itself.
Rabbi Riskin said he liked the name of the plan, "Two States, One
Homeland," and the concept as it was presented to him: a plan that
would allow for peaceful coexistence, and did not require anyone, Jew
or Arab, to be expelled from their homes.
[...]
The Jerusalem Post article's author, Andrew Friedman, claims "the plan
is a departure from the classic two-states-for-two-peoples formula,"
but it's anything but that.
It instead takes elements from some of the worst proposals, ideas that
even Peres, Beilin and Sarid refused to entertain, and makes them the
cornerstones of the plan.
But that's not what makes this plan dangerous. The danger lies in the
fact that this peace plan's proponents are targeting Jewish settlement
youths and older settlers who truly believe that coexistence is
possible, repackaged to make the plan sound benign
Efrat to Become Part of the Palestinian State
Rabbi Riskin was actually shocked to learn that his own town of Efrat
would be transferred over to the Palestinian State, and any of its
Jewish residents who choose to remain might be allowed to obtain
Palestinian State citizenship, or otherwise will be granted "permanent
residency" status.
It's implied in the plan that the Jewish residents remaining inside
the Palestinian State will be disarmed.
While he believes there can be land concessions in exchange for peace,
Rabbi Riskin said he could never accept a plan that transfers
sovereignty of the settlement blocs, and of Jews, away from the State
of Israel.
Demilitarization?
While the plan calls for some "demilitarized zones" and
decommissioning "armed militias and unauthorized organizations," the
Palestinian State will be anything but demilitarized.
In the Q&A section, the authors make it clear that the State of
Palestine will be a completely independent sovereign entity with its
own independent security force – but not to worry, the plan's Arab
co-authors say "they have no interest in tanks and planes."
With a plan like this, they won't need them.
By the way, all the plan's Arab co-authors "are senior Fatah
officials, all of whom served long stints in Israeli jails for
murder," according to the Jerusalem Post article.
Don't you feel safer now about their intentions?
Conclusion:
This plan is nothing more than a regurgitation of the worst of the
radical left's most dangerous ideas.
But the authors are actually playing a different game.
They are trying to get it support from the settlers and the settlement
youth, apparently through obfuscation of the dangerous ideas in the
plan and playing off the naiveté and idealism of those they approach.
=============================================
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
mailto:wfit2@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org
For online donations to Women in Green:
http://www.razoo.com/story/Women-In-Green
To subscribe to the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
womeningreen-subscribe@womeningreen.org
Check your spam filter for confirmation to reply to
To unsubscribe from the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
womeningreen-unsubscribe@womeningreen.org
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Linda Levy's pro-Trump blog. Worthwhile reading. Check it out!
Bsd
Linda Levy has some common sense reasons why she is voting for Donald Trump. Check out her new blog!
