Daily Infidel

Mark Steyn is a columnist and the author of a new book, America Alone. I haven't read the book yet, but I have found most of Mr. Steyn's op-ed pieces to be right on the mark (no pun intended).

I have watched the interviews with Michelle Malkin, which I highly recommend for both Mark's insight and wit.

Here is part one and part two of Steyn on Hot Air TV.

They could start by reading Hugh Fitzgerald's articles at Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch. Here are two very important essays published yesterday:

"The Necessity of Understanding Islam"

"Muslim Behavior in the U.S. and Europe"

Read them both, especially if you are a politician, academic, government or law enforcement official or media maven.

Leading UK Imam: It's OK To Kill Gays (from Little Green Footballs)

Fatwa by Iranian Grand Ayatollah: Men can hit their wives (from Dhimmi Watch)

Islamic Cleric Who Described Women's Bodies As ‘Uncovered Meat' Faces Deportation (New York Sun)

BBC Supports Rape-Excusing Aussie Imam (from Little Green Footballs)

Indian police foil militant bid to blow up state assembly (Yahoo! News/AFP)

France's Permanent Intifada (New York Sun)

Deadly Hezbollah chess match (Washington Times): regards how Hezbellah planned for Lebanese and Israeli civilian causulties long before the recent war.

Report: Iran Has Expanded Nuke Program (New York Sun)

In an article on the Foundation for Defense of Democracies website, Dr. Walid Pharis argues that many so-called experts in the West continue to see violent Islamic movements as nationalist or local, addressing specific policy grievances or fighting to attain power in a specific country. Instead, Dr. Pharis explains that these groups are classic Islamic jihadists who have the goal of imposing an Islamic government on the entire world and are willing to use violence to take on anyone who gets in their way. Furthermore, they don't carry the fight to infidel nations because of their involvement in Iraq or support for Israel, but because it is the duty of Muslims to carry out jihad until the whole world submits to Islam, regardless of the propaganda they use to justify their violence to the Western press. "All Jihadists have an ideological stake in every single battlefield for Jihad." says Dr. Pharis. "We need to begin understanding their logic and not to apply Western logic on them." His closing advice:

While it is true that Salafists born in Europe and never having been to Algeria are motivated to join the network, the reason behind it is deeper than just a so-called "Islamic anger over conflicts in Iraq , Afghanistan and Israel." These are the reasons invoked by the ideologues, the Salafist propagandists and al Qaeda. The reasons to join are a conviction that they are joining the Jihad, and pleasing Allah. They have been conditioned to see the world as a struggle between infidels and Islam. And it is through this prism that all matters related to international relations are seen and read.

Jihadists who have never been to Palestine, side with Hamas; those who have never seen the jungles of the Philippines, side with Abu Sayyiaf; those who were born in Algeria and were shooting policemen and journalists, decided suddenly to travel to Chechnya to behead Russian soldiers and shoot children in Breslan.

And to bring it back home to the exciting, and often misinformed, debate, we always need to use the Jihadi prism. Yes the Jihadists have been heading to Iraq to fight the American and British infidels, but as a part of a global Jihad against all infidels, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, where ever the opportunity arises and whenever the "emirs" see it fit strategically.

You can read the entire article at FDD.

Fjordman has an idea that would not only rescue Europe, but would benefit infidels worldwide: dissolving the European Union. The EU is an elitist and anti-democratic institution that is actively pursuing policies that are leading the continent to ruin. His latest of many important essays is available at Dhimmi Watch:

I've heard the term "Europhobe" being used of those who criticize the European Union. EU officials are busy rewriting our history books to insert Islam as a "natural part of European culture," despite the fact much of the history of Europe since Charles Martel in the 8th century has been about defending the continent against Islam. The real "Europhobes," those who hate or fear Europe, are those who run the EU, not those who are against it.

I find it personally insulting that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels should be allowed to define what constitutes Europe or European values. The EU is in reality the anti-European Union, since it is selling out the continent to our sworn enemies. It needs to go.

I've heard people say they are afraid that if the EU collapses, we might see a resurgence of aggressive nationalism. Frankly, I can't totally discount the possibility. But we can't think like that right now. This is now a matter of survival.

It's like saying that you won't have surgery that is needed to save your life because there's a possibility that you may get an infection later. In the choice between certain death now and possible problems at some point in the future, I take possible problems later.

A period of turbulence can be reversed. Islamization never can, or at least only with extreme difficulty. I want to prevent Islamization at literally ANY cost. And frankly, it's ridiculous to worry that the collapse of the EU might lead to fanaticism. The EU is facilitating fanaticism in the form of sharia and neo-barbarism in Europe right now.

The EU is bad for at least three reasons. First, because many of the EU elites are deliberately trying to create a common entity with the Arab world. Second, because the process of creating a pan-European federation has led to suppressing all traditional cultural, religious and national instincts that protected Europe from Islam before. And third, because the borderless nature of the EU makes both legal and illegal migration of Muslims more difficult to control from a practical point of view.

Read the whole essay. Print it. Save it. Read it again.

Serge Trifkovic is the author of the excellent new book, Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won - in Spite of Ourselves. Mr. Trifkovic dissects the unique threat posed by Islamic jihad, the mistakes the West is making and what must be done in order to save Western democracies from this existential threat.

The problem, says Mr. Trifkovic, is that identifying potential problems and solutions fall outside of the accepted boundaries of conversation in the West. He compares the situation to the Soviet Union when its leaders were searching for solutions to their economic decline. No one who was part of the Soviet elite could propose capitalism as the answer to the Soviet Union's economic woes as that would be a rejection of the entire communist project.

In the same way Western elites, either out of ignorance or denial, refuse to face the possibility that Islam, with its attendant political ideology, is inherently hostile to infidels and democracy. A devout Muslim accepts jihad as an essential tenet of Islam. That individual cannot honestly swear loyalty to the United States. His only loyalty is to the Islamic umma. His ultimate goal is to impose sharia (Islamic law) on the United States, which would reduce women and non-Muslims to second-class citizens. But for either neoconservatives and liberal universalists to admit that devout Muslims are naturally going to be hostile to American democracy would be to admit that their one-size-fits-all worldviews have a fatal flaw.

I highly recommend reading Defeating Jihad by Serge Trifkovic, a worthy choice for Infidel of the Day.

Read quotes from the book on our sister-site, Jew Hear Me, by clicking here and here.

While President Bush continues to insist that it is vitally important for America that Iraq succeeds in fullfilling his vision for the country and its role in the region, Daniel Pipes argues that internal security in Iraq isn't a major strategic interest of the United States:

The situation in Iraq has become a source of deep domestic antagonism in the coalition countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, but it can be finessed by noting that the stakes there are actually quite minor, then adjusting means and goals on this basis. Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the future of Iraq? I strongly suspect not.

Iraqis want possession of their country; and peoples in countries providing troops serving in Iraq have wearied of the hopeless effort to transform it into something better than it is. Both aspirations can be satisfied by redeploying coalition troops to the desert, where they can focus on the essential tasks of maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, keeping the fossil fuels flowing, and preventing humanitarian disasters.

The idea has developed since World War II that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. This "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption is wrong and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, there are times and places where rehabilitation is appropriate, but this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping feasibility and American interests strictly in mind. Iraq – an endemically violent country – fails on both counts.

Let's stop wasting lives, treasure and morale trying to make Iraq the peaceful, prosperous for all and democratic society its Arab inhabitants don't seem particularly interested in (Iraqi Kurds have essentially gone their own way already). Then we can put that money into developing alternative sources of energy, securing out borders and ports against terrorist infiltration and keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of third world despots. Read all of Pipes sensible suggestions.

Front Page Magazine has an interview with Dr. Tawfik Hamid, author of The Roots of Jihad. Dr. Hamid, a former member of Jaamma Islameia where he met Dr. Aiman Al-Zawaheri (now the second in command of Al- Qaida), provides rare insight into the mindset and religious inspiration behind Islamic jihad. As I've written in the past, it is vitally important that infidels learn from those who are native to the Muslim world and disillusioned by their experience there, whether former terrorists like Walid Shoebat or Christians such as Brigitte Gabriel who lived in the Middle East under radical Islam.

Here is a selection from the interview with Dr. Hamid conducted by Andrea Jacobs:

Dr. Hamid speaks throughout the US on understanding — and challenging — radical Islamic ideology.

I’m reminded of Jews trying to dialogue with Jews for Jesus and other Christian proselytizers. Either you know your Torah, or drown in their specious arguments.

The same applies to discussions with Muslims, says Dr. Hamid.

“It is vitally important to confront Islamic organizations in the US on these points. They should clarify their positions in an unambiguous manner. Of course, they will say what they say. But you must put your questions to them in a clear manner. Do not give them a chance to blame the world for their own actions. They know how to play with the words. I know, because Iwas one of them.

“For example, a Nazi can say Nazism is peaceful. But if they don’t denounce the Holocaust or the killing of Jews, what they say means nothing.” Dr. Hamid proceeds to offer his method for cracking the fundamentalist Islamic code.

“I am happy to give you the right answers to ask now,”he says, the flicker of a smile forming on his dark features.

“Ask them, ‘What do you think of killing apostates? Is it correct, or absolutely wrong?’ If they say it is absolutely wrong, take them to the next question. ‘Clarify what Saudi Arabia says about killing apostates.’ (The punishment for apostasy in Saudi Arabia is death.) Tell me whether this is wrong. If they say it is wrong, ask them to please put this up on their Website, or post it in their mosque, or have them sign a document stating that this is what they believe.

“The same is true of beating women: ‘Is is correct or absolutely unacceptable to beat women?’ Ask me. I could say to you, ‘Islam generally recommends dealing in a good manner with women.’ Or you may hear, ‘Oh, it’s only in rare instances.’ I know how they trick the world. I was one of them.

“Don’t let them betray you. Don’t . . .”

He struggles for an accurate English translation, his fingers jabbing the air.

Don’t leave the question open-ended, I suggest.

“Ah, never!”

He leans forward on the table.

“Ask Muslim kids what they think about Jews. Kids do not lie. They will tell you what they are being taught. If they say, ‘Jews are nice people and we can live with them in harmony,’ I will be the first person to congratulate their parents. But I assure you, if you ask Muslim kids living in the US what they think of Jews, you will be shocked.”

In the US?

“Yes. In the US. You will be shocked.”

“Dr. Hamid, do you hate your own people?”

For the first time, he hesitates — briefly.

“I am against them,” he says. “When you preach peace, and the whole community boycotts you and your wife and your children, it is painful. Just because you preach that killing apostates is absolutely wrong and is not mentioned in the Koran, and that Jews are not ‘pigs’ and ‘monkeys,’ and the community threatens you, it is painful. But forget my passion, my emotions. Follow the logic.”

Dr. Hamid says the Islamic world did not condemn bin Laden for masterminding 9/11.

“Not one single fatwah (religious ruling) was issued against bin Laden. I have never heard of one. Have you? Yet 24 hours after the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, there was a fatwah to kill Rushdie.”

In the wake of 9/11, many Muslims expressed their sorrow on American TV.

Some were genuine, Dr. Hamid says.

However, the majority were sending their approval to the terrorists via the media by not mentioning bin Laden’s name.

His narrowing brow warns me I’m not going to like what I hear.

“Listen closely. Let’s imagine that I, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, commit a terrorist act. The media invites another Muslim to appear on TV and talk about what Idid. This person says, ‘Islam is against terrorism. Islam is against violence.’ But he does not say my name. I get the message. By not mentioning my name, he is telling me to do it again. It’s like a hidden language in our culture. I know I am being given the justification to act.”

He notices a disbelieving shadow creep across my face.

“You are very naive,” he tells me.

Read the whole interview. Twice.

Ali Sina has a devastating take on America's role in creating John Walker Lihdh, the "American Taliban." He puts the blame on political correctness, a desire not to offend other cultures and ignorance about Islam. This article might make you uncomfortable, but it will definitely make you think, especially since President Bush continues to insist that the terrorists, who quote the Koran, follow the example of the Prophet and kill in the name of Allah, have nothing to do with Islam.

Read "Let Walker Walk Away. Put America on Trial" at Faith Freedom International, an organization founded by Mr. Sina as "a movement of ex-Muslims striving for the freedom of faith and freedom from Faith in Islamic countries." I also recommend visiting Mr. Sina's new website.

A former Muslim from Somalia and ex-member of the Dutch Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a critic of multiculturalism and the treatment of women in Islamic communities. She examines the issues relating to Muslim immigration to Europe from both sides of the debate in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, "Europe's Immigration Quagmire." She then offers her own policy suggestions. Ms. Hirsi Ali is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Fjordman is a secular European who nevertheless "acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture." He says that non-religious multiculturalists pose the greatest threat to our tolerant, Western democracies. In an essay at Dhimmi Watch, Fjordman has this extremely insightful quote from Austrailia's Cardinal George Pell:

...some seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history.

This leads Fjordman to conclude his essay, "Thou Shalt Hate Christianity and Judaism:"

Maybe if Western Multiculturalists get their will, and Islam does conquer parts of the West, they will discover that the new religion is infinitely worse than the old one. Of course, by then it will be too late.

In a Boston Globe op-ed piece, Cathy Young hits the veil on the head:

...using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

The great Dr. Wafa Sultan (see "INFIDEL OF THE DAY: Dr. Wafa Sultan" for background information, links and video) weighs in on the veil controversy. Notice how Sawsan Hanish tries to blur the distinctions between Islamic societies and the West. Sultan effectively points out the difference:

...Syrian-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, an outspoken critic of Islam, described an "honor killing" of a young Middle Eastern woman that occurred with the help of her mother. In a later exchange, another participant, Libyan journalist Sawsan Hanish, argued that it was unfair to single out Muslim societies, since women suffer violence and sexual abuse in every society including the United States. Sultan pointed out a major difference: In many Muslim cultures , such violence and abuse are accepted and legalized.

Read the whole Boston Globe article.

The Palestinians rejected the US-Israeli offer of an independent state, embraced suicide bombing, cheered on 9/11, elected a terrorist group to govern and responded to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza by firing rockets on Israeli towns, building tunnels used for smuggling weapons and distroying the greenhouses left behind by the vacating Israelis that were purchased for the Palestinians with American donations. Condi Rice's response: "redoubling" American efforts to aid the Palestinians and calling the establishment of a Palestinian state "no greater legacy for America."

Really? More important than protecting America from terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, keeping rogue states in check, developing alternative sources of fuel, securing our borders and working with real allies to stop the funding and spread of jihadist Islam in the West?

I guess so. Given all the dangers America faces in the world, Ms. Rice believes establishing a terror state in the heart of the Middle East is the responsible thing to do.

For more on America's pro-Palestinian advocates, see my posts on our sister-site Jew Hear Me:

Israel's Survival Depends on Seeing the Enemy without Illusions

Boston Globe's Novel Policy Advice: Peace in Middle East

Carter Crosses the Line: Lays 'Apartheid' Tag on Israel

Related posts on Daily Infidel:

Hamas PM: My Language is Language of Blood

Soros and His Merry Band of Appeasers

Rice's Pro-Palestinian Propaganda Hard to Digest

Clinton, Bush Follow Same Appeasement Strategy

Other coverage of Condi and the Palestinians:

Jonathan Tobin: Kisses from Condi, from Jewish World Review

Don Feder: High Priestess of the Palestinian State, from Front Page Magazine

Check out this must-read op-ed piece in the Washington Times ("In Defense of Liberty"). It is the rare article that not only clearly indentifies the threats from jihadist Islam, but also offers a list of practical measures America can take to protect itself. Key quote:

We believe that being in denial about Islamic militancy profoundly compromises U.S. national security. Our system's toleration of religious belief does not immunize religions from criticisms of the tenets or practices of those belief systems. This is particularly true when the criticized practices, though rhetorically labeled "religion," are actually elements of an imperialistic social system antithetical to equality, liberty, separation of church and state, and other core Western values.

Activist efforts to limit America's free marketplace of ideas -- such as the tactic of slandering commonsense criticism as "Islamophobia" -- are contrary to the very foundation of democratic governance. The West cannot cure Islam's propensity to spawn radicalism; this is a matter only Muslims can address. But we must do whatever is necessary to protect our liberty and security.

Read the whole article. Twice. Print it on good paper for future reference.

First the Newsweek story, then Steve Emerson fills in the details that Newsweek left out.

From Little Green Footballs:

Newsweek has an article on another “influential” Islamic scholar—read: a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood—who has been barred from entering the United States.

Oct. 18, 2006 - A leading member of Britain’s Muslim community, headed to New York for an academic conference, was forced to leave his transatlantic flight without explanation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security earlier today.

The removal of Kamal Helbawy, the 80-year-old founder of the Muslim Association of Britain [Another “mainstream” group. —ed.], came just minutes before his American Airlines flight was due to take off from London’s Heathrow Airport. The incident is the latest instance in which U.S. security officials have denied prominent Muslim leaders entry to the United States.

The move startled officials at New York University Law School who had invited Helbawy to be a featured speaker at a conference the organization is sponsoring Thursday night on the Muslim Brotherhood movement. “He’s a really respected guy,” said Paul Cruickshank, a fellow at the law school’s Center for Law and Security, which had organized the conference. “He’s very influential within the Muslim community in Britain and his name is recognized throughout the world.” ...

Helbawy, an Egyptian-born Islamic scholar, was for years a leading spokesman in Europe for the Muslim Brotherhood, a secretive organization founded in Egypt that some U.S. officials say is dedicated to spreading a radical brand of Islam throughout the world. [This kind of doublespeak is maddening. It’s not just “some US officials.” The Muslim Brotherhood themselves openly declare their intent to dominate the world; they don’t even try to hide it, but Newsweek won’t report that. —ed.]

While not denying his affiliation with the Brotherhood, Helbawy described himself in a telephone interview today as a moderate who has publicly denounced terrorism “thousands of times.” He also noted that he serves on the Muslim Council of Britain—a semiofficial British government advisory committee that works to turn British Muslims away from violence.

At the Counterterrorism Blog, Steve Emerson fills in some of the context about Helbawy that Isikoff and Hosenball apparently don’t think is important enough to mention in their article: Muslim Brotherhood Member Barred from United States.

Helbawy appeared at a conference of the Muslim Arab Youth Association in December 1992. I was there. And here are excerpts from the speech he made recorded on videotape:

“Do not take Jews and Christians as allies, for they are allies to each other.”
-----
“O’Brothers, the Palestinian cause is not a conflict of borders and land only. It is not even a conflict over human ideology and not over peace. Rather, it is an absolute clash of civilizations, between truth and falsehood. Between two conducts – one satanic, headed by Jews and their co-conspirators—and the other is religious, carried by Hamas, and the Islamic movement in particular and the Islamic people in general who are behind it.”
-----
“Lastly I am going to say something about Imam Hassan al-Banna, peace be upon him, who had been trying to establish 70,000 fighters. And he started with the first battalion with 10,000 fighters and today the Palestinians became strong fighting battalions, let us stand and support this great nation and the future is for Islam and I ask God’s forgiveness for you and for me and the Muslims. We ask God to give victory to our brothers and we ask God to release the leader of the Intifada, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, praise be upon him.”

Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal also spoke at the same conference, immediately after Helbawy. Meshaal told the audience “ ... the Palestinian nation was ignited with heroic jihadi martyrdom on the Palestinian land. And the start of the blessed Intifada, which was ignited by the blessed man, the handicapped Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, is the one who caused the earth to shake from under the feet of the occupiers. Since then, the Palestinian people have shown examples of sacrifice and courage and heroism. Among the proofs are the revolution of the stones, the Molotov cocktails and the knives.”

In 1991, Helbawy spoke at a conference hosted by the Islamic Committee for Palestine, a front group that was headed by convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami al-Arian. Other speakers at the event include Specially Designated Terrorist and current General Secretary of PIJ, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, the notorious Egyptian “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdul Rahman (spiritual leader of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, currently serving a life prison sentence for his role in a plot to blow up New York City landmarks), and PIJ founder and spiritual leader Abdel Aziz Al Awda.

Helbawy’s radicalism and support for terrorism (and terrorists) is both longstanding and well documented. Despite his current protestations and NYU’s willful blindness, U.S. government officials are rightfully wary of his past and level of influence. The Department of Homeland Security deserves credit for keeping Helbawy, and others like him, out of the United States.

Diana West perfectly lays out what America's policy should be with regard to Iraq and the larger war against jihadist Islam in an op-ed piece in the Washington Times. It pains me to suggest Civil War as I hate the idea of more innocent people being killed, but the Iraqi people (with the exception of the Kurds) have limited interest in building a functioning nation and a seemingly boundless enthusiasm for jihadi murder. Better they fight each other than us. Ms. West writes:

Guided by the false god of democracy, blind to the zealotry of Islamic culture, we have locked onto a course with no rational endpoint.

Even as we pursue "security," "stabilizing" the Shi'ite-dominated, Shariah-guided Iraqi government—and, thus, creating a natural Iranian (Shi'ite) ally — makes zero strategic sense. But, see here, say supporters of the president's Iraq policy: If we don't secure and stabilize the Shi'ite-dominated, Shariah-guided government in Iraq, that same government falls, America suffers defeat in jihadist eyes, and Shi'ite-Sunni war breaks out in full force.

Well, which scenario is better for the U.S. of A? I vote for civil war. It seems obvious when Shi'ite and Sunni jihadis — and their Islamic world sponsors — are busy slaughtering one another, they have much less time to plan their next attack on Americans, in the region or stateside.

[...]

What would a war policy "about us" look like? First, as a matter of national security, it would call for energy independence. It also would be designed to keep jihad out of the West, and emphatically not to bring democracy to lands of jihad. Such a mission would necessarily engage the military in the Middle East, destroying or neutralizing myriad Islamic threats, from Iran to al Qaeda, from Syria to Hezbollah.

Read every word. Twice.

It's about time! On Saturday at 7 PM EST, C-Span finally will be broadcasting the fantastic speech Brigitte Gabriel (see INFIDEL OF THE DAY: Brigitte Gabriel) gave at The Heritage Foundation last month. Hear Ms. Gabriel, a Lebanese-American Christian, tell her personal story of her encounter with radical Islam during the Civil War in Lebanon as well as provide context and analysis of the current struggle with Islamic jihad. Stick around for the question and answer session.

Ms. Gabriel is the author of the must-read new book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. She is the president and founder of American Congress for Truth.

You also can hear the full speech at The Heritage Foundation website. For a taste of the question and answer session, check out this video on You Tube.

Faith Freedom has an informative article on Islam by Professor Moshe Sharon. I strongly advise reading it in order to understand what the jihadists believe and what motivates their actions. It is not enough for infidels to claim we are at war with terrorism. Terror is a tactic, just one of many employed by Muslims in their struggle against the West. Infidels are at war with the adherents of an ideology and we must understand the goals of the people who are trying to defeat us.

Read every word of this article. Print it out. Save it. Read it again.

Daily Infidel announces the debut of our sister site, Jew Hear Me:

Why start a blog called Jew Hear Me?

Jewish people need to wake up to the attacks, verbal and physical, that Jews are facing around the world. If you're not a victim of violence at the present time, you need to understand, as Benjamin Netanyahu put it, that the first step toward violence against Jews always starts with the lies and demonization of the Jewish people. This creates the foundation upon which marginalization and then murders, pogroms and genocide can occur.

It is important to understand the nature of the lies being told about the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Be prepared to answer those malicious distortions. Do you think Palestinians would be so eager to blow themselves up in order to kill Jews, if they weren't taught lies about Jews in their classrooms, media and mosques? While it is beyond our ability to help Palestinians overcome the disease of anti-Semitism, we simply cannot afford to allow the same cancer to metastasize outside the Arab world.

The lies being told in the media and on college campuses demand a response from a confident, proud, knowledgeable and courageous Jewish community. It starts with false accusations against Israel, but anti-Zionism ultimately leads to anti-Semitism, and not as far down the road as you might think. Jews in the relative safety of the United States must not bury their heads in the sand. Trouble will find the hidden Jew, the convert to Christianity, the anti-Israel leftist and the secular humanist just as it will the keepah-wearing, Shabbat-observing Jew. As many a Palestinian leader has said, "we don't distinguish between Labor and Likud. A Jew is a Jew and we don't have any use for them."

A people can't effectively defend itself if it is unaware of the justice of its own cause. The more I've studied the history of Israel and the Jewish people, especially since September 11, 2001, the more I've come to understand this. Israel and the Jewish people have been victims, and yet to many people around the world, the Jews and Israelis are the world's top villains and worst victimizers. To a large extent, through our own indifference and ignorance, we have allowed our enemies to define us. Too many Jews are committed to every fashionable cause, but can't find time for the their own self-interest. We are not a powerful enough people, despite Israel's military and wonderful allies among the American people and within the US Congress (none of which was enough to crush Hezbollah and remove a mortal enemy from Israel’s northern border), that we can allow the lies to distort the view of Israel and the Jewish people in the eyes of those who don't know any better.

Israel is engaged in a constant battle for legitimacy against the Islamists, Arab Nationalists, UN internationalists and leftist churches, political activists and academics. The average person doesn't have a dog in the fight. If they are only hearing one side of the story because Jews either don't care or aren't able to defend themselves, then the other side wins out and its view becomes the mainstream view. It often amazes me that a people that has produced so many talented lawyers, journalists, writers and Nobel Prize winners, can’t seem to develop people with the ability to tell the story of Israel and the Jews in a simple, concise, factually accurate, emotionally relevant, unambiguous and unapologetic fashion.

I hope this website can help change these negative trends in some small way. By placing factual information, incisive quotes and relevant articles here, my aim is to help provide people with the tools needed to make the case for Israel and the Jewish people. I am not here to engage in spin or fight lies with more lies. The facts are on our side. Too often, we are unaware of them. Certainly we can’t rely on the media alone to inform us.

I invite anyone who cares about Israel and the Jewish people, whether Jew or non-Jew; left, center or right; religious or secular, to participate by leaving comments, posting or emailing news stories and alerting readers about issues and events related to this cause.

Thank you for stopping by this site and please return often. By acting, we will ensure our future, and a better future for the whole world.

J.H.M

Check it out. Visit often.

Jew Hear Me

If you want to understand why the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds clash, if you want to make sense of the violence carried out by jihadists against infidels, if you want to know why America was attacked on September 11, 2001, watch this five-and-a-half minute video.

Dr. Wafa Sultan knew the death threats would come, but after 9/11, she also knew she had to speak out. While her criticism of radical Islam on al-Jazeera won her fans across the world, the cost was her relationship with her own family. Her mother won't speak to her and her brother says she was bought off by the Jews to denouce Islam for a million dollars. From Wikipedia:

On February 21, 2006, she took part in Al Jazeera's weekly 90-minute discussion program The Opposite Direction. She spoke from Los Angeles, arguing with host Faisal al-Qasim and with Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli [an Egyptian professor of Islamic studies] about Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory. The six minute composite video of her remarks was subtitled and widely circulated by MEMRI on weblogs and through e-mail. In this video she is scolding Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not recognizing the accomplishments of non-Muslim society, while using its wealth and technology.

The New York Times estimated that the video of her appearance was viewed at least one million times as it spread via weblogs and e-mail. Her thesis, described as witnessing "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose", has brought her telephone threats,[1] but also praise from reformers. Her comments, especially a pointed criticism that "no Jew has blown himself up in a German restaurant", brought her an invitation to Tel Aviv, Israel by the American Jewish Congress.

Check out Dr. Sultan's famous appearance on al-Jazeera, with English subtitles provided by MEMRI.

Read excerpts from the transcript of the February 21, 2006 show.

If only we could get the parties talking, you know, get back to the road map, to Mitchell, to Tenet, to Oslo, to the days when the US was more engaged in the Middle East, to involving the Quartet, to working with the Egyptians, to returning to the Saudi peace plan, to the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace...enough!

Israel can't make peace with the terrorist supporting, inciting, funding and glorifying Fatah. And the Israelis certainly have nothing to talk about with Palestinian Prime Minister Isma’il Haniya, whose Hamas party won the elections in Gaza and the West Bank. Here is a Hamas member who spoke with Mr. Haniya at a rally, from Memritv.org:

The language of blood is my language, and there is nothing but blood. I have shut my mouth to the art of speech, and let the machine gun do the talking. I let Al-Qassam do the talking, to turn the dens of the Jews into hell.

Haniya himself made the PA position clear, "We will never recognize... We will never recognize... We will never recognize Israel."

A recent poll by the Al-Mustaqabal Research Institute reveals that nearly two-thirds of the Palestinians reject "normalized relations with Israel."

Now Ms. Rice, what was it the two parties are supposed to talk about?

This doesn't exactly come as a surprise. We know all the networks use Palestinian fixers in order to translate and insure the safety of Western journalists. We also know that these "fixers" are trained to serve the Palistinian cause, receive advance notice from PA officials and terrorist leaders of where to go to catch the action and have too large an influence over Western TV coverage. That is why we see so many staged photos and one-sided reports coming out of the Middle East. From Honest Reporting, thanks to Front Page Mag:

Following the Reuters Fauxtography scandal, another of the press agency's employees is in trouble, as Israel National News explains:

On Tuesday, a Reuters cameraman was remanded to prison until trial for his part in rock-throwing attacks on security forces in Bil'in, where the separation fence is a constant target of protesters.

The cameraman, Imad Muhammad Intisar Boghnat, was arrested and charged as a result of violent riots in the Arab village of Bil'in, in the Modi'in region, on October 6, 2006. A videotape that the prosecution presented to the judge shows Boghnat encouraging and directing rioters in Bil'in to throw large chunks of rock at Israeli vehicles in such a way as to cause maximum damage. The accused is heard shouting, "Throw, throw!" and later, "Throw towards the little window!"

This is not the first time that members of the media have taken an active role in the story. Reuters itself was accused in September 2006 of misusing press vehicles to transport Hamas-linked Palestinians, while the entire issue is best summed up by Fayad Abu Shamala, a BBC correspondent in Gaza, who declared at a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001: "Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

Heroic Bangladeshi journalist Shoaib Choudhury committed the unspeakable crimes of advocating better relations with Christians and Jews (for more, see INFIDEL OF THE DAY: Shoaib Choudhury) and attempting to attend a conference in Israel. He faces the death penalty for suggesting Bangladesh should have "ties with Israel." From the Jerusalem Post:

Muslim journalist facing charges of sedition for advocating ties with Israel was recently attacked and beaten by a crowd in Bangladesh that allegedly included leading officials of the country's ruling party, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz newspaper, an English-language publication based in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, was working in his office on October 5 when nearly 40 people stormed the premises.

The mob beat Choudhury, leaving him with a fractured ankle, and looted cash that was kept in the company safe. Choudhury was briefly hospitalized.

According to a statement appearing on the Web site of the Weekly Blitz, the attackers were led by Helal Khan, international affairs secretary of Jasas, and included Babul Ahmed, Jasas's secretary-general. Jasas is the cultural wing of the ruling Bangladeshi National Party (BNP).

During the assault, Ahmed is said to have shouted at Choudhury, labeling him an "agent of the Jews."

The debate has been joined, from CNN.com:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that Islamic head scarves are a sign of separation and Britain's Muslims should be encouraged to integrate with mainstream society in order to improve the quality of their lives.

Blair's comments represented a strong stand in an emotional debate that has raised broad questions about Muslim communities' ties with the rest of Britain.

[...]

Blair said Tuesday that the veil "is a mark of separation, and that's why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable."

"People want to know that the Muslim community in particular but actually all minority communities have got the balance right between integration and multiculturalism," he said.

Blair said evidence shows that "when people do integrate more, they achieve more as well. There is a reason why minority communities that have integrated well then end up doing better, achieving more, attaining more."

In an area in which he has been such a positive force for Britain and the West, Mr. Blair once again refused to allow excuses for terrorism:

The prime minister also angrily rejected suggestions that British foreign policy -- particularly the country's support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has helped radicalize some young Muslims.

"It's absurd," he said, adding that opposition to the conflicts does not justify terrorism.

"If (radicals) are going to use that as an excuse to cause further extremism or violence, that is a reflection on them, it's not a reflection on the work we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan," he said.

For more on the Niqab debate, check out this excellent discussion on BBC Radio.

The French know Israel won't attack them for their bellicose statements. They would never have the courage to even question the operations of Hezbollah or other terrorists. What a bunch of cowards! Jihad Watch has a link to this story from Haaretz:

Commanders of the French contingent of the United Nations force in Lebanon have warned that they might have to open fire if Israel Air Force warplanes continue their overflights in Lebanon, Defense Minister Amir Peretz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

Peretz said that nevertheless, Israel would continue to patrol the skies over Lebanon as long as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 remained unfulfilled, adding that such operations were critical for the country's security, especially as the abducted IDF soldiers remain in Hezbollah custody and the transfer of arms continue.

Over the past few days, Peretz said, Israel had gathered clear evidence that Syria was transferring arms and ammunition to Lebanon, meaning that the embargo imposed by UN Resolution 1701 was not being completely enforced.

What a shock. The UN doesn't give a damn about Israel. UNIFIL troops have been aware of--and at times collaborating with--Hezbollah activities in southern Lebanon for years.

Jonathan Kay at Political Mavens ("Confessions of a Misguided Hawk") says what too few on the right will admit: The Iraq war is a failure. He gives three reasons for supporting the war (weapons of mass destruction, creating democracy in the middle east and ending the slaughter and suffering of Iraqis) and would have considered the accomplishment of any one of the three a confirmation that it was worth sending American troops into Iraq.

Amidst the carnage, millions of brave Iraqis have voted in national elections. But the forms and pageantry of democracy can’t disguise the fact that the tolerant, pluralistic government everyone wanted remains a pipe dream: While Iraq’s legislature serves as an arena for squabbling amongst the country’s three main groups, the real spoils are hashed out on the streets by their various militias. Far from setting off a freedom epidemic in the Middle East, Iraq’s tragedy has created Exhibit A for every Arab tyrant looking to justify his hold on power.

While Kay makes several good points, he doesn't touch on the influence of Islam in causing sectarian strife in Iraq. He also fails to castigate himself or other supporters of the war for failing to educate themselves about Islam. Is Islam incompatible with democracy? Do Western values of human rights and religious tolerance clash with the basic tenets of Islam? Had I known then what I know now of the all-encompassing and authoritarian nature of Middle Eastern Islam, I never would have held the slightest hope of the democracy experiment working.

Since the US allowed too many terror attacks to go unanswered throughout the previous decade starting with the first World Trade Center bombing, I also feel the war could have been a success if we smashed Iraq's military capability, thus reestablishing deterrence. And then we should have left. Instead, we wasted lives and treasure staying in Iraq and attempting to give the Arab Sunnis and Shiites the good government and infrastructure that they neither seems to want nor are willing to work for. And they sure as heck don't appreciate our efforts.

Rather than emerging from Iraq feared, with dictators cleansing their hands of any connection to terror, we hurt our deterrence by showing that insurgencies, world opinion and domestic opposition can discourage the Americans from advancing military goals and acting ruthlessly when necessary. Syria and Iran are emboldened not intimidated. Nations that can't defeat America on the conventional battlefield feel that they hold off the Americans through terror, diplomacy and the media.

BBC Radio, of all places, has an informative, intelligent discussion of Jack Straw's comments regarding the Niqab. From there the participants delve into a larger discussion of the role of religion in democratic societies, including such controversial subjects as assimilation, multiculturalism, immigration and the rights and responsibilities of minority communities in West. The discussion of what is appropriate dress for secular business, and what message the Niqab reveals about the wearer, has opened the way to tackle issues that previously were only mentioned in a whisper. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is among those interviewed as are Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray.

Click here to listen.

The Washington Times has the story of Susan Estrich, former campaign manager for Michael Dukakis, and ex-president of the ACLU Harvey Silvergate, joining the defense team for "two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders." Altas Shrugs received this email commentary from Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad:

Look at the underpinnings of this "defense" by Susan Estrich et al... Le Trahison De Clercs of our time, Jihad Denial...A genocidal (and timeless) global Islamization campaign is deemed legally and morally equivalent to a localized self-defense effort against that hideous process by the vibrant, liberal democracy of Israel! And of course it is a Jew, perversely, leading the legal team making this immoral equivalence. How utterly depressing. Maybe Estrich will suggest Hasan Nasrallah for the next Nobel Peace Prize for "orchestrating" the Lebanon Hudna, the way Gertrude Stein suggested Hitler be similarly rewarded after Munich.

Incredibly, the suspects' attorneys also argue that such charitable giving, to support the jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax-exempt under U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom. Moreover, they compare their support of Islam's "holy war" to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) appeals for tax-deductible "donations to finance the purchase of bulletproof vests, helmets and firetrucks in connection with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict."

If you argue that funding jihad is part of Islam, and thus should be permitted under the First Amendment, then you can't logically say that the terrorists "are extremists who have twisted a peaceful religion." Their defense is clear: we support terror because the Koran tells us to do so. Do Estrich and Silvergate know that Jews are at the top of the list of attended victims? Do they care? Do they have any concern for the Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc. victims of JIhad? Are they aware there is no Islamic version of freedom of religion? Do they know that jihadists would like to have all infidels (non-Muslims) living as second class citizens, converts to Islam or not living at all? This isn't some high school mock trial exercise. There are serious consequences for America and its infidel citizens, not to mention the Israelis and religious minorities throughout the Muslim world. And Estrich and Silvergate have signed on to the wrong side of the battle. There is no justification I could accept.

Check out the article by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A Lappen.

According to Bill O'Reilly, George Soros contributed $20,000 to the defense team for attorney Lynne Stewart, who was sentenced today to 28 months in prison for passing messages from jailed terrorist sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (aka "the blind sheik") to his followers.

Does Soros have any shame? Does he hate his country that much? Are folks like Stewart and Soros so committed to America's enemies that they even would aid those who would slit their throats?

Jacob Laskin writes in Front Page Magazine about Columbia's barring of more than 100 guests to hear former PLO terrorist and current Israel supporter Walid Shoebat, and two others who have rejected their violent pasts, speak during the event, "From hate to Love."

Atlas Shrugs has audio and video of these important speeches.

Solomonia says it "sounds like things are a bit different than some of the photo-ops would suggest." From Ynet:

Signs of distress: Although Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah continues to boast about a "divine victory," significant signs point to the fact that the situation in Lebanon is not as of yore.

One of the signs can be seen in the fact that Hizbullah decided to cancel the central rally for Jerusalem Day – the last Friday of the month of Ramadan, in which supporters of the Shiite militia commemorate Jerusalem every year through military demonstrations and belligerent statements.

This year Hizbullah officials announced that the central event has been cancelled and that local rallies will be held in the different regions. The organization's statement said that this is a historical year, in which the "robber of Jerusalem" (i.e. Israel ) suffered a crushing and historical defeat by the group's fighters, and that the organization has decided to settle for the mass victory rally held on September 22.

"In order to ease on our honorable public, we decided to replace the central event with local activities," the statement said.

It appears that Hizbullah is trying hard to find ways to "ease on the public" as time passes since the war. The school year has just begun, and in Beirut's Dahiya neighborhood students arrived at the ruins which were once their schools.

In the Bekaa Valley, a large number of students flocked to the classrooms which have already began operating, and fears rise over the winter which is on its way, especially among those who have been left homeless.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in Hizbullah's stronghold of Baalbek, demonstrators have already taken to the streets, claiming that they are on the verge of hunger.

"The failure to deliver governmental compensation for the demolished houses is pushing us to a state of hunger," owners of the ruined houses chanted during a demonstration Friday. Although the protest was directed at Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, it appears that if the situation is not improved, Hizbullah will also hear about it...

The Washington Post ("Inside Hezbollah, Big Miscalculations") also tackles this theme that, as Solomonia puts it, "the outcome of the war was not everything Hizballah might have wanted...

"The story of the war is yet to be written."

Here is a fascinating story (at Pedestrian Infidel) of a young man in the Muslim world who dared to question Islam. In his enlightening tale of how he ultimately left Islam and converted to Christianity, "Avenging Apostate" tells of the ideas, values and cultural norms he confronted growing up in a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE:

I was taught that the Jihad was the best way to heaven. And no, Moslems don’t mean jihad as 'an inner struggle with one's own desires'. Jihad means Holy War, which the Koran mandates for all Moslems so that they 'kill all non-Moslems'. I was told that the Jews were to be killed because they had committed wrong doings against the prophet Mohammed and so the Christians too because of the Crusades.

Oh and as is perceived in the west, no – Islam doesn't distinguish between men, women and children. Anyone born out of Islam is a non-Moslem and, therefore, can be killed. Only if the non-Moslems surrender to Islamic supremacy, they are given two options, which are 'Embrace Islam' or 'Die'. Sometimes a third option is granted to the infidels, which is 'Pay Jizya Tax' which is not like income tax at all but is a punitive tax of ‘protection’ applied only on non-Moslems living under Islamic rule. Along with that, non Moslems are rendered as 2nd class citizens, forbidden from owning property, and subjected to many other humiliations...

If you want to learn what the people of the Middle East are taught about Islam and infidels in mosques, schools and at home, read "From a Jihadist to a Human."

You've probably seen the article many times since Sept. 11, 2001 in one form or another. A Western reporter or Arab professor (in the latest example, Fawaz A. Gerges in the International Herald Tribune) interviews a bunch of ordinary Muslims in the Middle East to find out why they are angry at the United States.

Among those representative of the Muslim viewpoint, rarely are Muslims quoted as saying they hate the West because it is full of infidels who must submit to the rule of Islam or die. The only time you get even a glimpse of the vile anti-Semitism rampant in countries like Egypt is if the author intends to show that the person holding such views is the exception.

It always comes back to American policies and statements by Western leaders. Despite what might be honorable intentions, our actions, the author reports, appear to Muslims as an attack on Islam. If we would just follow this or that policy suggestion, then we would marginalize the "tiny minority of extremists" and win over the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim masses.

Congratulate yourself if you have refused to fall for this nonsense. Put aside the stupidity of basing American policy on the suggestions of fanatic, conspiracy-indulging, largely uneducated peoples in far off lands who don't share our values of tolerance, equality and separation of church (or mosque) and state. In societies where the government-controlled media, religious authorities and academics say that you don't take Christians and Jews as friends, the CIA and the Mossad were responsible for 9/11, Christians are launching another round of Crusades, Jews use the blood of non-Jews to bake Passover Matzoth and attacks on Muslims in the West are regular occurrences, are we really to blame for their emnity?

Given the lack of freedom of thought and expression, and the desire of Arab governments to have scapegoats at which to direct their people's rage, it seems we are destined to be mistrusted--and probably hated--throughout much of the Muslim Middle East regardless of our policies. Given the differences in our core values, this seems quite natural.

Of course this whole anger-at-the-West-because-of-its-policies argument falls apart when you consider the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt (or any other minority community in Arab countries). The murders, rapes, destruction of churches and thefts of property perpetrated by gangs of Muslims, with the government looking the other way, can't be seen as resulting from Western policies. The Copts are not Western. They have been in Egypt since before Islam existed. They don't support Israel and haven't taken part in the invasion of Iraq. Yet their history in modern Egypt has been one of persecution and suffering at the hands of their Muslim neighbors. Just like Americans and Europeans, they are attacked by jihadists because they are infidels.

Hugh Fitzgerald slams The New York Times ("New Duranty Times") for its failure to investigate, understand and inform infidels about the religious sources, practices and agenda of the jihadists. Read this important article at Dhimmi Watch.

The Muslim world rages against the slightest offenses from Danish cartoons of Muhammad to an ancient speech quoted by the Pope. Since 9/11, Islamic groups in America have focused much of their dialogue with infidels on complaints about supposed persecution and Islamophobia, including such terrible crimes against humanity as "hostile stares" and inconveniences at airports (newsflash: everyone who flies is now inconvenienced at airports).

However when it comes to the disgraceful treatment of infidels in Muslim countries, there is no outrage and no condemnation of Muslims from their co-religionists. Powerline cites Atlas Shrugs for posting the story of the beheading of an Assyrian priest in Mosul and the murder by crucifixion of a 14-year-old Christian boy.

Assyrian International News Agency has an email from Adris Hanna, a priest in Sweden, telling of the dire situation facing Iraqi Christians:

Christians are living a terrified life in Mosul and Baghdad. Several priests have been kidnapped, girls are being raped and murdered and a couple of days ago a fourteen year old boy was crucified in the Christian neighborhood Albasra.

I have also spoken to a group of nuns that were robbed and treated brutally on their way between Baghdad to Amman in Jordan.

The murder of father Paulus is the final blow for Christians, and now only hell is expected for the Christians of Iraq.

We the oriental Christians in Sweden and the rest of the Western world must protest against the genocide. We must do what we can to stop the rape, threats, hatred, robberies, murders… We must do something.

These latest murders continue an escalating pattern of attacks against Iraq's Christians. On October fourth a bomb ripped through an Assyrian neighorhood, killing 9.

If Islam is a religion of peace, where is the condemnation from Muslims, especially those in the West who are free to speak their minds, of these barbaric acts committed in their name?

The star of Da Ali G Show, Sacha Baron Cohen, has a new movie coming out in early November featuring everyone's favorite Central Asian reporter, Borat: :Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. The movie has received rave reviews from all 12 reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes. Leslie Felperin of Variety calls it an "uproariously funny mockumentary." Felperin continues:

The Borat character reps Cohen at his best. As with Ali G, Borat's modus operandi is to set himself up as a journalist and interview or interact with unsuspecting folk, asking them provocative questions that either shock or embarrass them, or, in some cases, prompt them to reveal their own prejudices.

Borat reps a comically distorted third-world country bumpkin whose intentionally backward attitudes have offended some critics and organizations, although Cohen (who is Jewish) insists the humor is ironic, and that part of his strategy is to expose bigotry and conformity.

The movie has already drawn the ire of Kazak officials, making Cohen's recent press conference and antics in Washington to promote the movie even more hilarious:

Jagshemash, my name Borat Sagdiyev. I would like comment on recent advertisements on television and in media about my nation of Kazakhstan, saying that women are treated equally, and that all religions are tolerated - these are disgusting fabrications. These claims are part of a propoganda campaign against our country by evil nitwits Uzbekistan - who as we all know are a very nosey people, with a bone in the middle of their brain.

Check out the video of the press conference and lots more at Borat.tv.

Not content with subverting American democracy, George Soros has expanded his area of operations to include undermining Israel's security. Caroline Glick writes in the Jerusalem Post about Soros and other prominent American Jews, who lead purportedly pro-Israel organizations that always seem to take positions compromising Israeli defenses, forming a lobby. They have already won a victory by pressing Condi Rice to take more action on behalf of the Palestinians. Let's name names: Israel Policy Forum, American Friends of Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the Religious Action Center. Their policy proposals will be bad both for Israel and the United States. They must be opposed.

Liberal radio network Air America filed for bankruptcy today. No word on whether they mentioned this on the air because no one was listening. Investors will keep the network on the air with the hope that given a few more years, Al Frankel will come across as funny rather than condescending.

With all the problems at Columbia, it's nice to get some encouraging news from a college campus. Thanks to an anonymous reader for passing this on to Daily Infidel: "Check out the stuggle of students at Wayne State University in Detroit to fend off anti-Semitism and support Israel at standwithus.com. Their counter rally to a 'divest from Israel' rally caused the President of the University to reject divestment in a 'letter to the editor' published in one of Michigan's largest newspapers this morning."

Here is the letter to the Detroit Free Press, which was also posted on Stand With Us:

Detroit Free Press
Letters to the editor
Free speech OK, but WSU won't divest
October 13. 2006

As a public institution that encourages learning, free expression and the exchange of ideas, Wayne State University recently was the site of a speech and protest by individuals opposed to the university's investment in Israel.

Wayne State opposes divestiture and has no intention of divesting itself of stocks in companies doing business with Israel or any other legitimate state.

We encourage our students to use their right to free speech, but accusations, acrimony and demands such as divestiture are counter to the intelligent dialogue and free discourse for which this university stands.

In a complex, international economy, divestiture is by no means a responsible approach to influence political or economic policy. Rather, it is my obligation to pursue legal, rational and productive investments on behalf of the institution.

Irvin D. Reid
President, Wayne State University

An excellent analysis of the typical Columbia University student's mindset by CU junior Matt Mireles in today's New York Post:

Of course, having never seen much grit for most of their lives, Columbia students tend to balk at the first sight of too much reality - like going above 125th Street. On the other hand, joining a protest group is easy and safe but still "edgy" and cool. It lets students feel good about themselves and their convictions and their fight against "the man" without ever having to leave the shelter and structure of campus.

Mr. Mireles was a 2006 winner of the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism.

Read the whole article.

Walid Shoebat's guests were barred from attending his event because they didn't have Columbia University ID cards. However, when notorious anti-Semite Norman Finkelstein spoke at Columbia, the university backed down and allowed him to bring in 180 people without IDs, according to BWOG, the Columbia student magazine's blog, and Kesher Talk. Finkelstein had threatened to cancel his speech if his guests weren't granted admission. Obviously, CU felt the community couldn't afford to miss the Holocaust-minimizing, Israel-hating Finkelstein.

Let's recap how Columbia handled the two events. Critic of anti-Semitism: only 20 guests without CUID's allowed in. Anti-Semite: all 180 guests without CUID's admitted.

While I was disappointed that I didn't get to hear him speak at Columbia, Atlas Shrugs did a great job capturing video and audio from the event. Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist and current supporter of Israel, gave one of the most powerful talks you will hear on the jihad against Jews, Christians and Americans.

Most valuable to infidels is his explanation of the Islamic concept of hudna. Do our leaders and journalists know what this term means? An understanding of the concept and its application in Islam illustrates the uselessness of "peace process" and "road map" and negotiating a "two-state solution." No "peace process" or "negotiated solution" can bring a lasting peace if the Islamic side sees it as merely a temporary break in hostilities until it is strong enough to return to the battlefield with confidence in its military might. That is why right after signing the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn committing the PLO to pursue peace and renounce terror, Yasser Arafat spoke in Arabic about the accords being a hudna. When will the naive Israelis and their idealistic American friends learn that you can't force peace or an independent state, no matter how much you give away or how nice and rational you are, upon a people committed to jihad.

Mr. Shoebat also compared the education and indoctrination of Palestinian children to that of Nazi Germany, telling his audience about the anti-Jewish influences in every aspect of Palestinian Arab society. Even more enlightening was the admission that all the major Palestinian families, no matter how anti-Jewish they may have been, sold land at exorbitant prices to Jews, whom they would later claim stole "Arab land."

Does Condi Rice know any of this as she presses for the creation of a Palestinian state that would not serve the interests of the US, Israel or the greater Middle East?

Little Green Footballs has remarks from Condi Rice to the American Taskforce on Palestine. This "humiliation of occupation" nonsense is pure propaganda. Had the Palestinians shown the slightest inclination to act peacefully, they would have had a state 35 years ago.

Despite their remorselessly violent attacks on Jewish civilians throughout the fall of 2000, Israel again made the Palestinians an offer of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, and like the offer at Camp David, it was rejected without a counter proposal. What is the Palestinian peace plan? What is their vision for a state? The only consistency in their political vision is that an Arab-Islamic state should cover all of Palestine, leaving nothing for the Jews. Oh yeah, the best way to bring about this Arab-Islamic state, they say, is through jihad.

None of Sec. Rice's pandering will win America any friends in the Muslim world. It only makes us look weak and increases the demands made of infidels.

Why don't we believe what the Palestinians say, especially in Arabic? It's not as though their actions aren't consistent with their words.

Is Ms. Rice the US Sec. of State or another slick, Western Palestinian spokesperson and apologist? She certainly knows her PLO talking points:

"Palestinians deserve to live better than they do and be 'free of the humiliation of occupation' in a state of their own,“ said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday night.

”I promise you my personal commitment to that goal,“ Rice said at a dinner marking the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine.

”There could be no greater legacy for America,“ Rice told the group, which describes itself as nonpartisan and supportive of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.

”The Palestinian people deserve a better life ... free of the humiliation of occupation," she said.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs hits the proverbial nail squarely on the head:

A question for Condoleezza Rice: on what basis do Palestinians “deserve” a better life, and why is it our responsibility to give it to them? They voted en masse for a radical Islamic terrorist group with an open policy of genocide. They have turned their back on every offer of statehood, chosen a path of violence and murder, and built a death cult society that instills hatred in children from their first moments of life.

And they danced in joy on September 11.

This is nothing but pandering to the victimhood propaganda of an enemy of America, and once again Condi Rice has succeeded in making my stomach turn: Rice: Palestinians owed a better life.

Daily Infidel has received this letter from another person who had a reservation to hear former PLO terrorist and current Israel supporter Walid Shoebat speak, but was literally left out in the rain. Name withheld to protect the innocent:

I also attempted to go to the lecture last night. I (and another physician colleague and friend) had a confirmed reservation, and left my office (I am a faculty member at an area Medical School) early to get there and did not see the last minute email. Like everyone else who went to Roone Auditorium, I not only lost valuable work time, but got drenched in the process only to be turned away at the door. I think this act on the part of the Columbia administration is despicable and inexplicable. It is yet another black eye for an institution that claims to honor the highest ideals of our society - civil discourse on the most contentious issues of the day so as to enlighten and educate their students as well as the public at large. I have high school age sons and after this I would never consider sending them to Columbia despite the fact they are straight A students. These kinds of attempts at Orwellian mind control is truly dangerous to the freedoms of our society. I agree the conduct of the Columbia administration should be publicized far and wide.

Two very different administrations and yet one very similar policy when it comes to rogue states and terror-supporting governments: appeasement. In Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick writes that while the Bush administration talks tough, it has basically followed the Clinton administration's approach toward Iran, North Korea and the PLO:

Were the Bush administration to change its policy tomorrow regarding Iran - begin shaming Europe into ending its appeasement, and threatening Russia with trade sanctions if Moscow continues supporting Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, while building up its military options to strike at Iran's nuclear installations - the American public would understand why the policy change was necessary. Indeed, such a move could even help the Republican Party in the upcoming elections.

[...]

Since Arafat appointed Mahmoud Abbas, his deputy of 40 years, PA prime minister in 2003, the US has upheld Abbas as a man of peace, a moderate and a respectable leader that the Bush administration wishes to strengthen. To this end, the Bush administration has overlooked Abbas's clear support for terrorism. It has excused his constant appeals to merge his Fatah terror group with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has ignored the fact that his Fatah terror group has committed more acts of terror than Hamas and that Fatah's involvement in terror and the sophistication of its attacks has only increased since Abbas replaced Arafat after the latter's death in November 2004.

[...]

Even more disturbingly, Rice has officially sanctioned a policy put together by US Army Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton to expand by up to 70 percent Abbas's presidential guard and personal army, Force 17. The administration wishes to raise some $20 million to fund the training and arming and expansion of Abbas's army from 3,500 to 6,000 soldiers. This move comes after the US transferred 3,000 rifles and 1 million bullets to Force 17 in June. Yet Force 17 is a terrorist army led by terrorists.

Right after he received the weapons shipment, Abbas appointed Mahmoud Damra commander of the force. Damra, who like many of the Force 17 officers and soldiers, doubles as a Fatah terrorist, was wanted by Israel due to his direct involvement in the terrorist murder of at least 15 Israelis. One of his deputies claimed that the US rifles were immediately used to attack a bus carrying Israeli school girls in Judea.

Disturbing, to say the least. Read it all.

Atlas Shrugs was at the event and she has posted audio, video and photos at her must-read website.

Check it out and see what you missed last night.

An amazing speech that everyone needs to hear, especially those in government and the media.

***Also on Atlas, a reader mentioned this little known but important fact from Shoebat:

In response to a question about the power of clan leaders, Walid said, yes, clan leaders have power, but they are also vulnerable. Years ago, 18 clan leaders were murdered because they admitted having sold land to the Jewish National Fund. Walid went on to say that everyone had sold land to the JNF at tremendous profit. The land was sold, he said, not occupied by force, but no one was allowed to admit it. He said, it's not about the land.

Here is a report Daily Infidel has received from someone who was lucky enough to get into the event at Columbia last night.

KEY POINT from Shoebat's speech: "The speakers were fairly critical of Jews and others who think appeasement can bring peace.

"Walid pointed out that the word hudna, usually translated as truce or ceasefire, actually means strategically taking time off from fighting to regroup and obtain concessions. Muslims feel no obligation to tell the truth to non-Muslims."

Here is the whole report:

I got to Lerner about 6:45 with sandwiches, but the guards wouldn't let us bring food into Lerner auditorium, even though parties with food are often held there. I had to check my tote bag, my umbrella, and my PURSE. They made another friend check his jacket. But they had no metal detectors and did not frisk us. So we could have been packing. I spotted Jewelnel Davis and expressed my indignation about not being able to bring my (registered) family. She spouted the party line about the priority of safety and not wanting people to storm the stage or get kicked in the head. I said they would have a lot of angry people out front (they did; I was hearing angry voices by 7:00), and she said yes, but they would not be inside. I asked why the late notice, and she said they had not anticipated so many (>125) non-CUID registrants. I asked why not. She said there were only 20 last week. I said, That was last week. This is ridiculously poor planning. She said this is what we have to do.

About 150 people were present in an auditorium that can hold ~400. Jewelnel began promptly at 8 by making a 5-minute speech about freedom of speech and civil academic discourse. She said the speakers would speak until about 9:15, and the Q&A would go until 10, after which everyone would be expected to vacate the premises. Then the speakers started. The first terrorist, Zakaria Anani, is, I think, a Baptist minister, but he is the son and grandson of imams, and at age 13 he became a militia fighter in the Lebanon war. At age 14 he made his first kill and celebrated. By age 16, he had killed 233 people and felt that his life had become meaningless and would not last long. Then he encountered a Baptist minister and converted. His imam told him that he had 3 days to convert back or be killed. In the next 20 years, there were 18 attempts on his life. For the first 10 years or so he was living in the Christian sector of Beirut, married, had children. One of the attempts injured him and his youngest daughter. After that his church got spooked and sent him away; he and his family moved to Canada. Somewhere along the line someone asked him the reason for the Islamic teaching that Jews have the wrath of God on them. He tried to research it and realized that the Jews were being wronged. But, he said, the western world does not understand.

The second speaker, Hilmar von Campe, also is a devout Christian who now lives in Alabama. He was 7 years old in 1933 when the Nazis came to power. His father was a state official of some sort who was ousted by the Nazis and relocated to an area that is now one of the Czech states. He reminded the audience that the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi party) was far left. Josef Goebbels, the chief liar, said We are Communists. Hitler eliminated all other parties, trade unions, youth organizations, etc. All young people had to join the Hitler Youth. Newspapers, radio, and the film industry were controlled by the Nazis. In school, there were jokes about religion and God, and constant rhetoric about how bad the Jews are and how good the Germans are. On 9/1/39, Hitler reported that the Poles had invaded Germany and that Germany had to defend itself. Although he and his circle hated the Nazis, all felt that they had to defend Germany first and deal with the Nazis second. He said that many people were unaware of the Holocaust, but that everyone was aware of the discrimination against and unhuman treatment of Jews and all kept silent, including the churches. He said he became a liar too. He also said that in 1972, the KGB and Andropov adopted a policy of turning the entire Islamic world against Israel and the United States. During Q"&A, he cited as his source a book, Red Horizons, by a defecting Rumanian general.

Walid Shoebat pursued that theme. His father was Palestinian, his mother an American who naively went to the Middle East to visit her husband's family and was trapped there with her children for 35 years. He said that Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II and murdered the Jews of Bosnia. He said that he was educated to believe that Jesus was a Palestinian revolutionary who came to liberate Palestinians from Zionist oppressors, that Jews spread Mad Cow disease, cause tsunamis, etc. He translated Jihad as Mein Kampf. He is a convert to Christianity. He also said during the question period that when Muslims are at least 20% of a population, they are obliged to seize state power. He also said that Muslims do not believe in the separation of church and state.

The question period was better than I expected. The questioners were somewhat critical but they did not rant. The answers were generally to the point, despite some language problems. The speakers were fairly critical of Jews and others who think appeasement can bring peace. Walid pointed out that the word hudna, usually translated as truce or ceasefire, actually means strategically taking time off from fighting to regroup and obtain concessions. Muslims feel no obligation to tell the truth to non-Muslims. When criticized for hate speech, they responded that they were criticizing Islam, not Muslims individually. Walid had said at one point that Muslims should have a right to convert to Christianity, that Jews should have a right not to convert to Christianity, etc. A couple of questioners interpreted him as saying that Muslims should convert to Christianity. He straightened that out. Some questioners asserted that moderate Muslims do not believe all those bad things. Anani said, if you think your imam is moderate, ask him what would happen if his son converted to Christianity.

Walid's overall presentation, and that of the group, was, I thought, much stronger than his presentation at Columbia a couple of years ago. I am sorry you had to miss it.

Brigitte Gabriel, author of the must-read new book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Teror Warns America, will be appearing on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" this afternoon between 4-5 PM EST on Fox New Channel.

For more on Ms. Gabriel, see the previous post, Infidel of the Day: Brigitte Gabriel.

Columbia Daily Spectator has a story on the issues surrounding last night's event in which 95 invitations were withdrawn--at the last minute--and the community was prevented from hearing former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat speak:

During the speech itself, Shoebat said he believed anti-Semitic indoctrination was occurring at universities including Columbia and Princeton, where an invitation for him to speak was rescinded last year. "Terrorism is not just bombs, it is indoctrination, similar to the indoctrination that is in the heartland," he said. "Before we can fight the terrorism that is without, we have to fight the terrorism that is within."

Here are links to other sites regarding Columbia University's last minute decision to bar the public from hearing Walid Shoebat speak on campus:

Solomonia

Atlas Shrugs

Little Green Footballs

Kesher Talk

Michelle Malkin

What They Are Saying

Other links on Daily Infidel:

UPDATE: Atlas has Audio and Video from Shoebat Event

REPORT: Inside Shoebat Event at Columbia

Shoebat: Anti-Semitic Indoctrination at Columbia

INFIDEL OF THE DAY: Seva Brodsky

Columbia Offends Pro-Israel Community Again

UNBECOMING: Columbia Bars Public from Anti-Terror Event

You know CU would never treat the Muslim Student Association the way it has the College Republicans and the pro-Israel community.

Here is an email response to Columbia barring the public from hearing Walid Shoebat, formerly of the PLO, talk about renouncing his past acts of terrorism. Shoebat has become one of the most effective public speakers in support of Israel.


Seva Brodsky writes:

This is really nice, thank you very much, Jewelnel. Never mind that I am on a Greyhound bus from Boston, approaching NYC, coming to NY with the sole purpose of attending the event, and by chance decided to check my e-mail on my mobile phone PDA, which I hardly ever do. Who needs advance notice anyway, right?

I wonder what prompted you to suddenly change the attendance policy? I mean, I have signed up well in advance (prior notice, hint-hint), got the confirmation on time (hint-hint), and left Boston on time, having spent $50 for the roundtrip ticket.

It couldn't be due to political correctness, could it? I mean, you wouldn't be afraid of some outsiders coming to the event from afar so as to get educated, enlightened, and inspired, right?

This, dear Jewelnel, smells of a scandal. Which you are about to have, on account of this cancellation, as well as for quite a few other reasons. Your decision is outrageous, unfair, inconsiderate, undemocratic, anti-intellectual, anti-academic, frivolous, gratuitous, etc. Oh, wait, I forgot -- did I mention it was also highly untimely? This decision flies in the face of the First Amendment and everything else that makes this country great.

It's not as if Columbia U. didn't have enough scandals already, especially lately. So what's another scandal? No sweat of Columbia's back, right?

Well, we'll see about that last one, won't we? I hope you have good legal in-house counsel, for you have just made a whole lot of people quite unhappy. I am sure the reporters will have a field day once again. Enter the press ...

Unbelievable ...

Seva Brodsky
Somerville, MA

I was planning to see former Palestinian terrorist and current Israel supporter Walid Shoebat speak at Columbia University this evening. At 4:50 pm, I received this email from Columbia rescinding my invitation:

It is the decision of the advising office to Student Governing Board groups that at tonight’s event sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans, hosts to the Walid Shoebat Foundation, attendance will be limited to the invited speakers and their staff, CUID holders, and 20 invited guests. You are receiving this email to inform you that unfortunately, your RSVP to tonight’s event cannot be accepted.
Sincerely,

Jewelnel Davis
University Chaplain
Associate Provost
Director of the Earl Hall Center

This last minute email went out to 77 people who had reserved tickets and made plans to attend. One person was on a bus from Boston when she received the news.

Why were members of the community shut out? I understand that there might be security concerns, but given Columbia's recent history with regard to Israel, CU hasn't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt. It is a shame that the public didn't have the opportunity to hear this amazing speaker.

Julie Gorin has an interesting article on Jewish World Review that has done nothing to dampen my feelings over the past few years that we made a major mistake in the Balkans. Maybe "alleged Serb aggression" wasn't the defining aspect of the conflict.

She quotes the late journalist Daniel Pearl from the December 31, 1999 Wall Street Journal:

"Allegations -- indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums, mutilation of the dead -- haven't been borne out in the six months since NATO troops entered Kosovo. Ethnic-Albanian militants, humanitarian organizations, NATO and the news media fed off each other to give genocide rumors credibility. Now, a different picture is emerging."

In addition to suggesting the Clinton administration was responsible for committing war crimes against the Serbs, Gorin is very critical of the media's role in misleading the American public and politicians. She quotes Gregory Copley, president of the International Strategic Studies Association, who wrote about Peter Brock's new book Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting:

"That there were genuine initial misunderstandings on the part of the world's media with regard to the Balkan situation is clear. But the fact that the media -- on whose judgments governments made policies -- allowed itself [sic] to be duped by propagandists, and that editors then refused to recant when their errors became obvious: there lies the essence of Brock's indictment….If Watergate was the modern starting point for agenda-based reporting, then the Balkan wars showed that, unchecked, the media could, without accountability, bring about the downfall of nations."

The scariest part of all this is that the US was fighting on same side as the jihadists in Bosnia and Kosovo. Those same jihadists were responsible for the planning of major terrorist attacks, including 9/11.

Ms. Gorin has been doing some excellent work in researching and writing on this issue. Read this whole article. We can't afford to be this wrong again.

From Gawker.com:

More from that quiet Ivy school uptown:

The Columbia College Republicans are at it again. On the heels of an event they hosted Wednesday, during which the founder of a group that patrols America's borders was attacked and forced offstage by angry protesters, the group is slated to host an even larger event [today], this one featuring two ex-terrorists and a former Nazi.

Now, to be fair, those ex-terrorists (Zachariah Anani, who is Lebanese, and former PLO member Walid Shoebat) have both committed attacks against Israel but are now on Team Jew, opposing the creation of a Palestinian state. The former Nazi, Hilmar von Campe, was a member of the Hitler Youth and served as a soldier but now feels really bad about it. The three will be lecturing against the dangers of indoctrination -- fitting, seeing as they're there on behalf of the baby GOP.

Daily Infidel Responds:

Should we only listen to anti-American and anti-Israel Muslims when we want to learn about the Middle East?

Who better to explain how terrorists are raised, indoctrinated and trained, than two people who grew up in Islamic societies and participated in terror activities? Who could shed more insight into the Islamic sources that are used in recruiting terrorists?

Some people oppose a Palestinian state, not because they want to deny self-determination to the Palestinians, but because they believe the state will merely be a phase in the larger plan to destroy Israel. Holding this view doesn't make someone a bad person or unworthy of being heard. In fact, given the evidence we have from Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, it is a responsible conclusion.

One more thing: What the heck is "Team Jew?" Given the diversity of opinion in both the American and Israeli Jewish communities on this issue, how did you decide which one of several different viewpoints is representative of "Team Jew?"

Shoaib Choudhury goes on trial Thursday in Bangladesh. The journalist is facing the death penalty for the Sedition Charge. The accusation against him is "praising Christians and Jews." Yes, you read that correctly.

Where is the outrage? Why are our leaders silent? If we are trying to encourage the spread of democratic values in the Islamic world, if we can send our young men and women to fight and die in Iraq for this purpose, why won't the American administration and top Congressional figures speak out loudly and forcefully against this flagrant violation of human rights? Obviously, I have no expectations for any such moral voice coming from Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

One of the terrible crimes Choudhury committed, in the eyes of the Bangladeshi government, was his attempt to attend a conference in Israel in 2003. According to David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Choudhury has been harassed by the Bangladeshi government, because "he has been a vocal opponent of radical Islam...[Choudhury] denounced the establishment of kindergarten madrassas, where the students have been indoctrinated with Wahhabi teachings promoted by Saudi Arabia that demonize Christians and Jews."

Jerry Gordon of Israpundit cites the research of Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad, and Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer in explaining that "the sedition charge is based on Koran and Hadith sanctions against dealing with the ‘people of the book.'" Mr. Spencer points to the Koran 5:12-14:

"Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel…But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them…From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment."

In "praising Christians and Jews," Choudhury is being charged with having "hurt" Islam.

Just to be clear, Bangladesh thinks Choudhury should die because he "praised Christians and Jews." For having the courage to stand up for his values, despite the obvious personal danger he faces for doing so, Shoaib Choudhury is the Infidel of the Day.

Photo: Protesters across from the UN demanding Bangladesh become "a secular, democratic country." Shot by Daily Infidel.

Note: Thanks to Israpundit for making me aware of this important issue.

Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch exposes the foolishness over whether "the American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism." There may be good arguments not to be in Iraq much longer, but there is almost no policy other than conversion to Islam or acceptance of dhimmi (second-class) status under Islamic rule that will lessen the rage directed at infidels.

Check out "95 things that fuel Muslim extremism."

Anyone interested in hearing former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, author of Why I Left Jihad, speak at Columbia University on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 must register by 3 pm today. Email shoebatatcolumbia@gmail.com and include your name as you will need to show ID at the door.

I guarantee this is an event not to be missed. In addition to Mr. Shoebat, speakers will include former terrorist Zak Anani and former Nazi Hilmar von Campe. Since leaving the PLO, Shoebat has converted to Christianity, become one of the most dynamic speakers in support of Israel and opened many eyes regarding the threat America faces from radical Islam.

For more information about the event, visit www.2xtn.com. Mr. Shoebat's website contains several interesting audio and video clips. Read his personal story in this article from the BBC website.

Photo from Shoebat.com: Walid Shoebat and Brigitte Gabriel, author of Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

Started as a front group for Hamas and funded by Saudi Arabia, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) portrays itself, with the collaboration of the mainstream media, as a civil rights organization. CAIR presents itself as a Muslim version of the NAACP or ADL.

In reality, CAIR has more in common in its goals with the Islamists than it has with the rest of America. Rather than focus on protecting Muslims from actual civil rights violations, CAIR seems most passionate about protecting those who fund and support terror from being prosecuted for their violations of American law, inventing the myth of widespread attacks and persecution of American Muslims since 9/11, and labeling as Islamophobia any legitimate criticism of the activities of Muslims. Contrast that extreme sensitivity to any discussion by infidels of Islam with the over-the-top condemnations of Israeli and American attempts at self-defense.

The description I just presented understates the evil that lurks in the hearts of CAIR's leaders and the dire consequences of CAIR's agenda for America. If CAIR had its way, America would be an Islamic republic operating under Sharia law while Israel and its Jewish population would be wiped off the map.

I advise all Daily Infidel readers to check out the new website, CAIR WATCH at americansagainsthate.org/cw. Click on the images. The most vile is the screenshot taken from CAIR's website in Dec. 2001. CAIR suggested donations for victims of 9/11 be directed to The Holy Land Foundation, meaning that the money would have gone to Hamas terrorists instead of needy American victims of terror.

Isn't it time the media stop quoting CAIR leaders every time an issue relating to Muslims or Islam arises? Isn't it time the media stop labeling CAIR as the "mainstream civil right group" representing American Muslims?

Links: CAIR WATCH. Americans Against Hate.

Walid Shoebat, the author of Why I Left Jihad, was once a terrorist in the PLO. Today, he exposes how Arab and Muslim societies, particularly in Palestinian towns and villages, create, recruit and indoctrinate their teenagers to become terrorists with the goal of destroying the State of Israel. Speaking throughout the country in synagogues, churches and college campuses, he talks of the religious inspiration and teachings motivating terrorists and why their goal isn't a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, but the eradication of the Jewish people.

Shoebat is a powerful public speaker. For those in and around New York City, he will be appearing at Columbia University on Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006. Registration is required by 3 p.m. Tuesday. For more information on this event, go to www.2xtn.com. To learn more about Mr. Shoebat, his website is www.Shoebat.com.

UPDATE: If you are interested in attending the event at Columbia, you must reserve a spot. Email shoebatatcolumbia@gmail.com by 3 pm Tuesday and give them your name.

Click here to see Mr. Shoebat's interview on CNN.

Listen to his amazing interview on the Gerry Ryan Show.

With North Korea once again threatening the world, it seems an appropriate time to honor the creators of South Park for their outstanding movie Team America: World Police. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have it right in their portrayal of Kim Jong-il as an evil, sadistic, attention-starved egomaniac and devious manipulator of peace-at-any-cost Americans. And like all megalomaniacal dictators, even lil' Kim sometimes gets lonely.

The movie also skewers Hollywood leftists who are so committed to preventing America from going to war that they attack American troops while protecting the peace-talking, terrorist-arming Kim. It pokes fun at those "patriots" who never met a war they wouldn't support while satirizing the clumsiness of America's military maneuvers and the bull-in-a-china-shop nature of US intervention abroad.

Still, the movie ultimately concludes that although America and its military may at times bully others, we need American power to protect our way of life from truly evil forces. Despite all his frustrating, too-apparent-to-need-mention flaws, life under George W. Bush is far better than life under Kim Jong-il.

What are his aims?

Why test nukes now?

Lt. Col Gordon Cucullu says he's "testing our resolve" in Front Page Magazine. Also in Front Page Mag, Ben Johnson writes about the failed diplomacy of Presidents Clinton and Carter.

Editorial from The Korea Herald: "Seoul now has two options. One is continued aid to the North, which will lead to perceptions that the South has caved in to nuclear blackmail; the other is resolutely ending the engagement policy and readying itself for any eventuality. For its part, North Korea as a nuclear power will find it even more difficult to survive under deepening international isolation leading to severer poverty, and the constant threat of a possible preemptive attack.

Kim Jong-il still has the chance to prevent a worsening of the crisis by returning to the Six-Party Talks and restarting denuclearization negotiations with the four neighbors and the United States. But he will soon find that joining the nuclear club with a few rudimentary atomic bombs does not improve the regime's lot at all."

Michelle Malkin links to OneFreeKorea article, "Now What?" Joshua Stanton believes the test was "an enormous miscalculation on North Korea's part."

Perhaps Mr. Kim is lonely.

Note: Photos are from the movie "Team America: World Police."

US confirms test. Reports indicate 4.2 tremor reading.

From Daily Telegraph.

UPDATE: Here is the latest from AP via Yahoo! News.

Many journalists responded to 9/11 and the ensuing activities of radical Islamists with mental laziness. They simply inserted the new events through the same filter with which they had chosen to view the world while the Twin Towers were still standing. Others, with no original ideas of their own, followed the lead, like they always had done, of the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR in directing their coverage and formulating their opinions.

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, decided she should learn about Islam, jihad and the religious and political motivations of the terrorists who are perpetrating acts of violence around the world. She views America's enemies with no illusions and no preconceived notions. Ms. Malkin didn't follow the discredited clichés that so many in the MSM found comforting: terrorism is a reaction to Western imperialism, frustration with American and Western policies, the desperation resulting from "Israeli occupation," our intolerance and other such nonsense. She saw through these apologetics, noticing inconvenient truths, such as the 9/11 hijackers weren't impoverished, the attacks were being planned during a time when the US and Israel were engaged in a peace process with the Palestinians, the history of attacks on local infidels has been occurring since long before Israel or the US existed. More importantly, Ms. Malkin had no hesitation in exposing the hatred, viciousness, depravity and incitement to violence coming out of the mosques, terror supporters and even mainstream Muslim groups in America. In her world, the security of the United States would not be sacrificed by denying a reality that makes some uncomfortable or comes across as politically incorrect.

Posters on a New York Times affiliated website have called her work" hateful" for uncovering the hatred brewing in the Muslim world, for directing vitriol at Islamists who incite violence against infidels and celebrate the murder of thousands of Americans, for exposing those who call for attacks on American civilians and the destruction of Israel, and for calling out the so-called mainstream Muslim organization for failing to offer sincere and unequivocal condemnations of terror groups. To these folks, Malkin is the enemy, not the radical Muslims who practice religious and gender apartheid, are openly and proudly anti-Semitic, treat historic Christian churches and Buddhist statues as worthy of desecration and destruction, educate their children to hate Jews and Christians and name streets and schools after suicide bombers. I think her critics have lost their way.

The caption from this AP Photo, posted on the BBC's European website, says, "Iran's nuclear program is popular with many in the country."

What are the odds that an AP photographer in Iran would show up near an industrial facility and find a single Iranian woman by herself with a printed political sign in English? Iran's nuclear program may or may not have public support, but the photo above provides no evidence that "many" favor it. I don't suspect that people in a repressive, totalitarian society are likely to offer reporters and pollsters any opinions that run counter to the official policies of the government.

When I go want to express my political views in the United States, I always go to an empty industrial complex by myself with a sign printed in Farsi, Arabic or Swahili. And an AP photographer always shows up with a camera.

Thousands of brave Venezuelans (BBC Photo) turned out for a rally in Caracas in support of President Hugo Chavez' opponent, Manuel Rosales (AP Photo), a social democrat and governor of the state of Zulia. Those rising up against an evil, anti-American, anti-Semitic, election-stealing thug deserve support from the United States government as there is no doubt Chavez will use whatever methods necessary to remain in power.

Check out the BCC News report.

Read about Chavez' weapons production in the Miami Herald.

Learn about his attacks on the Jewish community of Caracas on Front Page Magazine.

JTA: Chavez incites anti-Semitic sentiment.

In Paul L. Williams' forthcoming book, The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, the author reports that Islamist terror groups and their state sponsors are planning an "American Hiroshima." While I can't vouch for the authenticity of Williams' claims, I have no doubt that our enemies would use nuclear weapons and desire our destruction or submission to Islam. Here is the book description posted on Amazon:

"In two previous books, Osama's Revenge and The Al Qaeda Connection, seasoned investigative reporter Paul Williams revealed the alarming potential for nuclear terrorism on U.S. soil and the sinister connections among organized crime, illegal immigrants, and al Qaeda. Now, Williams broadens his focus beyond al Qaeda to provide readers with newly uncovered information on terrorist activities in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, other Muslim countries--and our neighbor Canada! What emerges is a harrowing picture of international terrorist activities, all aimed at the destruction of the United States and the collapse of the Western world. This cataclysm will usher in 'the Day of Islam,' the dream of radical Muslims to see all of humankind fall in submission before the throne of Allah. Based on the 'forgotten testimony' of the FBI's 'Confidential Source One,' as well as other sources, Williams first presents evidence of Osama Bin Laden's purchase of highly enriched uranium in Sudan and nuclear devices from the Chechens and the Russian Mafia. He then offers further information on the workings of Pakistani scientists and technicians from the A. Q. Khan Research Facility to maintain and upgrade al Qaeda's 'bespoke nukes' (with explosive yields in excess of ten kilotons) for the 'American Hiroshima.' This information comes with empirical proof that should dispel any doubts that these weapons not only have been developed but have also been forward-deployed from the seaport at Karachi to strategic locations within the Western world. Keeping the focus on Pakistan, he predicts a nightmarish scenario if President Pervez Musharref should be overthrown and his arsenal of sixty-eight nuclear weapons falls into the hands of radical mullahs. Williams also examines the role of the Iranians both in sponsoring terrorism and in planning the American Hiroshima. In addition, he uncovers many unreported and startling accounts of the terrorist activities of Hezbollah in America and presents evidence that the marriage between Hezbollah and al Qaeda has been consummated. Finally, he presents intelligence showing that grave threats to America come, not from just our southern border, but from Canada and its amazingly open policies regarding radical Islam. The greatest threat of all, he concludes, comes from within --not only from the radical mosques within every major American city but also the Islamic paramilitary compounds in rural areas throughout the country, including Islamberg in New York State, where new recruits are trained for the great jihad against the United States under the very nose of FBI and Homeland Security officials.

"Sure to be controversial, this shocking exposé sends a wake-up to Americans lulled into a false sense of security in the post-9/11 era."

The book is due out in April.

Rest in Peace.

Buck O'Neil (AP Photo) was the rare athlete who was not only a role model for other baseball players, but an example of the best of humanity. He won batting titles as a player. Off the field he touched many lives.

Director and biographer Ken Burns: "It's not so much that he put that suffering behind him as that he has brought gold and light out of bitterness and despair, loneliness and suffering. He knows he can go farther with generosity and kindness than with anger and hate."

Read his obituary on SI.com. Then watch this master storyteller share his experiences in his own words on MLB.com. His Negro League Players Association bio.

It was nice to see that, during the Bush Administration's ridiculous venture to find, nurture and create moderates--as if such a thing is possible--where none exist among the PLO, Hamas, and within the larger Arab world, Secretary of State Rice did stop off in Iraqi Kurdistan to meet with Kurdish leaders.

The Kurds, with their separate national identity, language, music and culture, deserve independence from Iraq. Despite having suffered greatly at the hands of the Arabs, the Kurds, with the exception of the fringe PKK, have eschewed terrorism, proving that terror isn't the natural result of desperation. They took advantage of the 12 years of American no-fly zones in Northern Iraq to build a better society after years of genocide, the destruction of thousands of Kurdish villages and the forced Arabization of the Kurdish cities and people. No one will confuse the Kurdish regions with Western Europe. Still, Sulymania doesn't have much in common with Damascus, Cairo, Amman and Baghdad. And that's a good thing.

In addition, the Kurds are largely pro-American, loyal allies who share the same enemies (Sunni Arab nationalists/Islamists, Iran, Syria), and more moderate in their practice of Islam than others in the region. I don't have much hope for the long-term success of democracy in the Muslim world, but Kurdistan could be the exception.

While I tend to be somewhat conservative on many issues of national security and foreign policy, it is clear to me that the war in Iraq has been a major waste of American lives, treasure and morale. Our extended stay in Baghdad, with its difficulties in quelling the violence, has decreased our deterrence in the region. Yet if one positive outcome can result from our intervention in Iraq, a Kurdish state would not only serve American interests, it would be a great act of justice long overdue for this determined, loyal and moderate Muslim people.

It's old news by now that Columbia University's Lisa Anderson, dean of the school of international and public affairs, invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's World Leaders Forum while the Iranian President was in New York City to address the United Nations.

What I didn't realize is that the mission of the Forum is "to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives."

Now I understand why Mr. Ahmadinejad was extended this invitation. By "examining global challenges," he can talk about how he plans to wipe out the Jews. And by "exploring cultural perspectives," he can share his views on why the Holocaust is a myth. Yet any Columbia student who reads a newspaper, uses a computer, listens to the radio or watches the news on television is already aware of the Iranian president's thoughts on Jews, Israel, America and other matters.

Dean Anderson, wasn't the real reason you invited Mr. Ahmadinejad was because he's anti-Israel, anti-American and a thorn in the side of the Bush Administration? And that's good enough for you. Plus, this was a sure way to get media attention for yourself, your school and your program. You had to know the reaction this would get. Very cynical. Very malicious. Very telling.

I read every article posted on Jihad Watch by the website's vice-president, Hugh Fitzgerald. I print Mr. Fitzgerald's pieces, save them and read them again. They have helped shape my worldview by educating me on Islam well-beyond the apologists I read while in college.

When I first started reading Hugh's work, I admit it made me a bit uncomfortable. His words registered with the logical side of my brain and I knew intellectually what he had to say about Islam, jihad and infidels was absolutely on point. Yet my emotional side still wanted to believe that the jihadists didn't represent the true teachings of Islam, that maybe the "moderate" Muslims could take back their religion from the "extremists", that maybe dialogue and hope and understanding and "peace process" and yada, yada, yada.

Logic won out. Little bits of truth that I had picked up along the way, ideas that I had floating around in my mind, all came together once put in context by Hugh, who makes his arguments so effectively, persuasively and unapologetically. It is the kind of talk we need from our educators, our politicians, our military leaders, our security services and our law enforcement officials.

The most articulate and insightful Israeli on the issues of terror and Islamic jihad is Benjamin Netanyahu. His appearances on American television are unlike any other Israeli official. Born in Tel Aviv, Mr. Netanyahu has both undergraduate and masters degrees from MIT. The former Israeli prime minister has studied political science at Harvard and MIT.

"Bibi" is most impressive on college campuses and in his guest spots on TV and radio networks like the BBC, confronted with hostile questioners seeking to paint Israel as a villain. Armed with the facts and the ability to speak concisely and unapologetically to unfriendly audiences, he comes across as visionary defender of the Jewish people against its Islamist enemies and their enablers in the United Nations and European Union.

Mr. Netanyahu has no illusions regarding the intentions and motivations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and the governments of Israel's enemies. He is highly suspicious of the "peace process", even with the PLO and other so-called moderate Arabs, because he knows that in Arabic, their leaders speak of destroying Israel, regardless of what they say to Western audiences in English.

In facing an enemy whose viciousness knows no bounds, Israel deserves better leadership than its current government is providing. Israeli voters should consider returning Mr. Netanyahu to the office of Prime Minister when the next elections are held.

For defending Israel, fighting the vilification of Jews all over the world and alerting the United States and Western Europe to the threats it faces from the jihadists, Benjamin Netanyahu is a worthy choice for Infidel of the Day.

President Clinton met with several LeftBloggers, according to Poltical Mavens.

Is he plotting a way to use the interent to help elect Hillary President?

Or looking to keep busy while she's back in Washington?

Maybe he wants to find a new intern on myspace...

Appearently, a congressman (Peter King, R-NY) from a district that lost people on 9/11 can't point out, without being accused of Islamophobia, that leaders of a mosque (Islamic Center of Long Island) have "publicly stated that the CIA or the 'Zionists' may have been behind the attacks." . What's worse, those making the charge, such as CAIR's Nihad Awad, are themselves tainted by their statements and associations.

In yesterday's New York Post op-ed piece, "The Jihad on King: CNN's outrageous smear,"Steve Emerson writes:

"Last week's CNN report was one of the most dishonest pieces of reporting I have ever observed in my entire 27-year career. In attacking King, CNN reporter Jason Carroll claimed the congressman had said the members of the Long Island mosque were 'part of an Islamic threat that could cause another 9/11.'
King has said no such thing; the red herring simply distracts from the real issue - the center's history of employing extremists and defending terrorists."

If Rep. King stating the obvious is enough for CNN to join the chorus of those wishing to whitewash American sympathy for the jihadists, what chance do we have in breaking up serious threats on our soil without the media attacking those efforts as well?

The bad guys are those who spread the lies that Jews or CIA operatives are responsible for 9/11. The good guy is the congressman who is troubled by the fact that leaders of a mosque refuse to condemn these outrageous statements. Even a CNN reporter should be smart enough to figure that out.

Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald explains how the enemy has sown division in the West while devising two very important policy suggestions for doing the same to the jihadists. His ideas not only have a great chance of success, but would cost far less in lives and treasure than our current policies.

I'm not going to post a quote because the article deserves to be read in its entirety.

Print it out on good paper. Save it. Read it again later. Email it to friends.

There is no more articulate, passionate or informed speaker on radical Islam than Brigitte Gabriel. What makes her presentations, question and answer sessions and writing so powerful is that she has first-hand experience with jihad. As an Arab Christian growing up in southern Lebanon, she spent seven years living in a bomb shelter during the Lebanese Civil War. After living in Israel and the United States, Ms. Gabriel has a clear perspective on the differences between the West and the Islamic world. She has no illusions about the intentions of our enemies.

If Ms. Gabriel was an Arab woman who told of being victimized by Israel rather than Muslims and the PLO, she would be a household name in the United States and feted all around the world, even if she had merely a fraction of her talent for speaking, writing and making sense of our world. In a debate, she would expose Hanan Ashrawi--the vicious, lying Christian PLO spokeswoman who is a favorite "moderate" of television hosts and intellectuals. But you only see Ms. Ashrawi opposed on television by male, inarticulate, English-challenged Israelis. If you are lucky enough to live near a university or bookstore where Ms. Gabriel will speak, go see her. You will learn more in ten minutes than in any Middle Eastern studies course.

Buy her new book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. Read every word--twice. Tell others.

Caroline Glick writes in the Jerusalem Post that it would be a sad day for Israel if Livni (in AP photo with German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier) is elected Prime Minister. A recent poll shows she would win the general election. Livni's worldview and policy ideas seem more like they were written by a European Union official than by someone who is responsible for representing the interests of the Israeli people.

"Both in her interview with Yediot and in her statements to Haaretz, Livni makes clear that unlike the public, she doesn't see why the war in Lebanon proves that the policy of surrendering land to terrorists is misguided. Ignoring the fact that Israel's withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza enabled the empowerment of jihadist terror groups and paved the way for the war that ensued, Livni sees the terror wars as an opportunity to bring foreign troops into Lebanon. Indeed, on the first day of the war, Livni instructed her advisers to begin drawing up plans for foreign forces to come to Lebanon to protect Israel. Although UNIFIL commanders have made clear that they will not disarm Hizbullah, enforce an arms embargo, or remove Hizbullah forces from the border, Livni views the UNIFIL deployment in Lebanon as a model for both Gaza and Judea and Samaria."

Sounds like a plan for national suicide. Wasn't one of the essential tenets of Zionism that the Jews would take responsibility for their own self-defense since the nations of the world had done such a poor job protecting the Jews?

Glick breaks down the current situation in the Middle East throughout this excellent article.

...then we can blame the Jews for their murderous acts when they get older. One day a Palestinian spokesperson will go on Western television, and in perfect English without a hint of irony, say that "we condemn all killing of innocent civilians, but this was a spontaneous act that resulted from the frustration and humiliation of occupation." And Ted Turner, Michael Moore and two-thirds of the continent of Europe will believe it.

This AP photo comes from the town of Kalkilya in the West Bank. One question: was the drive to close the YMCA because the Christian organization was "dangerous" a response to "Israeli occupation" as well?

The Arab supremacist government of the Sudan is conducting a jihad against the population of Darfur, killing, raping, starving and enslaving hundreds of thousands. Yet most activists for Darfur refuse to acknowledge the role Islam plays in the plans of the Arab leadership in Khartoum. There is almost complete silence about the Arab League providing cover to the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.

But the victims are Muslims as well, you might say? Yes, but they aren't Arab. And they aren't Wahabbis. And they don't practice the same version of Islam. And they're black Africans. And they're in the way. That is how the Sudanese government, and sadly, much of the Arab world see it.

Think about it. If the Arabs are willing to sacrifice their own children in order to kill Israelis or Americans, why would they hold the lives of black Africans in any higher regard? They don't. Their contempt for black people was evident in the genocide of more than a million black Christians and animists in the Sudan.

The government makes money off of oil. It has pan-Islamist and pan-Arabist dreams. If black Muslims must starve or be decapitated in order that they don't stand in the way of the greater good of the Muslim ummah, then so be it. Jihad has been declared in all its glory. Off goes Allah's soldiers killing men, raping women, enslaving children, terrorizing the population, stealing their possessions, destroying their ability to provide food for themselves and many other horrors done while joyously chanting "Allahu Akbar."

And what greater good will the Muslim world do with that extra oil revenue? Fund the jihad and kill Jews and Christians. And maybe Muslims as well who are apostates, practicing a less pure form of Islam, or who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wouldn't the "Save Darfur" folks do better to tell the truth about what is going on there? Why not connect the dots? What is going on in Darfur is related to 9/11, to the worldwide jihad "against the Crusaders and the Jews," to the terrorism taking place from Spain to Bali. It is not only morally right to help ease the suffering in Darfur, it is in our national interest to frustrate the dreams of the jihadists and slow the momentum that is building from one terrorist success after another.

I expected to see Brigitte Gabriel's speech at the Heritage Foundation on C-SPAN this weekend, but I couldn't find it. It turns out, according to Ms. Gabriel, C-SPAN hasn't shown it. Why? They certainly have no problem showing Arab groups bashing US foreign policy and blaming Israel for all the world's problems. Don't they have room in their schedule for pro-American and pro-Israel Arab speakers?

Look at all the unopposed time they gave Mersheimer and Walt's anti-semitic ravings about the Jewish Lobby that was full of outright lies and distortions. The "distinguished professors" spoke at least twice on C-SPAN (an interview and speeches at a CAIR event) at length. Yet Robert Spencer's interview on C-SPAN promted a counter interview in which a Muslim professor was given the opportunity to respond--again unopposed--to video clips of Spencer. Do you think Mr. Spencer would be given the same opportunity?

We know your cameras were at the Heritage Foundation for Ms. Gabriel's powersful speech on radical Islam and her book, Because They Hate. How about showing it?

Fortunately you can view a highlight video on you tube or listen to a full audio recording of the speech at the Heritage Foundation website.

Watch it twice. Then email it to your friends.

There once was a magazine cover story on Ted Koppel with the headline "the smartest man on television." He's not. He never was. Political Mavens comments on this brilliant idea from the self-admitted "pompous windbag:

Ted Koppel returned from a recent visit to Tehran where, he reports, he was the subject of a credit card scam. Oddly, he came back eager to be deceived by the Iranian government too. He proposes on the NY Times op-ed pages on 2 October that the U.S. stop trying to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Instead, he says, we should tell the Iranian mullahs that if a “dirty bomb explodes in Milwaukee, or some other nuclear device detonates in Baltimore or Wichita, if Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia should fall victim to a ‘nuclear accident,’…the U.S. will not search around for the perpetrator. The return address will be predetermined, and it will be somewhere in Iran.”

The idea is silly and dangerous. Most citizens of Milwaukee, Baltimore and Wichita would rather be protected against such an event than used as human deterrents. Moreover, the deterrent value of such a threat is dubious. What if other groups—like al-Qaeda—come to possess weapons of mass destruction, and use them? Should U.S. policy hold Iranian citizens responsible for what al-Qaeda does? Would it be just at all to incinerate Iranians who have little control over their rulers’ foreign policy? Would religious fanatics like Ahmadinejad, who like the idea of martyrdom, be deterred by Koppel’s threat—or might they actually be encouraged? Applying this hang-them-all approach to common criminals, would Koppel also urge police to allow criminals to kill and rob, but remind them “we have your address and will blow up your apartment building if a crime occurs that matches your m.o.?”

Trying to stop the Iranian mullahs from developing or using nuclear weapons by promising that the U.S. government would bomb Iran without seeking to identify the attacker if a weapon of mass destruction were used against Americans is unjust, destructive of effective foreign policy, and meaningless to rulers who see death in a holy war as a good thing. The mullahs may have been amused by Koppel’s suggestion, but probably not people in Milwaukee, Baltimore and Wichita.

If you are interested in learning about Islam, there is no better daily activity for infidels than reading author Robert Spencer's websites, Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch. It is crucial to understand (and not in a touchy-feely way) the jihadists, especially their motivations, religious sources of inspiration and the full range of tactics they use. Citing history, Muslim texts and the jihadists own declarations, Spencer paints a compelling picture of the threat posed to infidels by Islam that neither Republicans nor Democrats are addressing. He clearly lays out for the reader all the insidious tactics of the jihadists that go beyond terrorism and possibly pose an even greater threat.

Spencer has written several excellent books, including Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion is his latest offering. Don't expect a review from the New York Times.

For doing more to educate me about Islam and jihad than anyone else, Robert Spencer is Daily Infidel's first Infidel of the Day.

David Schraub of The Debate Link blog found the story of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries on Wikipedia and wondered if the story is true. Scroll down past the blockquote for my comment. From David's blog entry Forgotten Refugees:

I found this Wikipedia entry about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands to be quite interesting. Obviously, it's wikipedia, so take it with whatever grain of salt you give to that august research tool. I kind of vaguely knew that many Jews fled Arab countries as the 20th century progressed, but I had no idea it was this bad. The cause of the exile was rather standard fare (for Jews)--violence, oppression, anti-Semitic riots, anti-Jewish legislation. But its the magnititude that is truly astounding. The entry claims that the Jewish population in Arab states declined 99 percent from 1945 to the present day, from a base population of between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews to fewer than 7,000. To compare, the article claims that the Arab population in Israel has actually rebounded to exceed its pre-1948 level.

Of course, few people talk about the Jewish refugees. One reason is that most have resettled in Israel, rather than being held in an indefinite limbo by the UNRWA because nobody was willing to take them (this, in itself, is a rarity for Jews, as prior to Israel most states, including America, were quite skittish about admitting Jewish immigrants).

Daily Infidel's comment:

That story is absolutely true. It turns everything you hear about the Arab-Israeli conflict on its head.

This explains why the Oriental (Sephardic/Mizrahi) Jews, who are of Middle Eastern, North African and Spanish origin, and their descendents make up a larger portion of the Israeli population today than do Jews whose roots trace back to Europe.

And think about it: just as the world was learning of the horrors of the Holocaust, the Arab-Muslim countries of the Middle East and North Africa decided this was an appropriate time to ethnically cleanse their societies of Jewish populations, many of which pre-date Islam and some of which go back three thousand years, and had little or nothing to do with the modern Zionist movement. The total number of Jewish refugees from Arab-Muslim lands is greater than that of the Palestinians who fled Israel. The Jewish refugees never received a dime of aid or compensation from the Arab states or the international community. In most cases, they were forced to leave without being able to take their belongings, meaning they came to Israel destitute. The refugees Israel settled were more numerous than the number of citizens in Israel after its War of Independence. They did this without oil wealth. None of the refugees starved or went without a roof over their heads. Ultimately all were settled in permanent housing while the Arabs, with 22 nation-states, taking in three billion dollars a day in oil revenue and with plenty of cash to spread jihad and fund terrorism, have never found the need to build permanent housing, and with the exception of Jordan, provide Palestinians with full citizenship.

And don't forget about all the refugees from the concentration camps of Europe that Israel was absorbing at the same time.

Israel's enemies don't want this story told because it exposes the lie that Israel is an outpost of European imperialism.

I just came across this clip of Nonie Darwish discussing the movie Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

I haven't seen the movie, but judging from the clips and the commentary by Ms. Darwish and the director,it packs a powerful message about exactly what the jihadists are preaching in the mosques and teaching to their children.

I have always wondered why the US government thinks the way to understand the Muslim world--and develop potential intelligence operatives--is to send students to Arabic programs taught by Muslims and dhimmi apologists. These students could never go undercover into mosques and Islamic community centers.

These gullible Westerners are being taught the same nonsense about Islam that I learned in school ("jihad is an inner struggle" "Islam has special respect for Christians and Jews as people of the book," etc., etc.). It wasn't until after September 11th that I started doing my own research and found out what Muslims really say in their own languages to their own brethren.

Any CIA or FBI agent trained in an American college or Arabic language institute could never pass as a devout Muslim. The lies told to infidels to keep them ignorant of Islam would, if repeated because those lies are what he believes Islam to be, blow his cover and possibly get him killed.

The brilliant Hugh Fitzgeral of Jihad Watch addresses who should be sought for intel purposes:

Well, they should find those who have suffered from within Islam, or whose families have done so. Think of Berbers who might be disaffected from Islam because of the Arab supremacist ideology. Or Kurds. Or a Hindu who might have been driven out of Bangladesh, and who, properly schooled, might be able to pass as a Muslim. Think of Arabic-speaking Jews. Think of the pool of Christians from the Middle East -- Maronites, or Copts, or an Armenian from Haleb or Beirut, who suffered along with other Christians during the Civil War. A Christian from the Moluccas, whose village was attacked by Muslims. Find these people. Train them, slowly. Give them the kind of training in Islam that the KGB used to provide for spies going to the West -- you know, with those mock-American cities, and every detail of the New York Subway system, not to mention what Yogi Berra or Jimmy Durante said, by way of preparation.

Understand that it is not enough to call yourself a Muslim. You have to have that entire set of allusions to the life of Muhammad, to the history of Islamic battles, that any Muslim would know. Are the Americans up to this? Do they possess a cadre of teachers? Have they called in the French counter-intelligence? Or the Israelis? Or the Indians?

Read the whole article. Twice.