There are many Jewish anti-Zionists and anti-Semites who use their incidental Judaism as a cover for their views. There is a particular subspecies of these people who equate Israel with Nazis, based on a certain ability to recognize Nazi tactics because of their belonging to the Jewish people.

Prof. Joel Fischer of University of Hawai’i, is one such person. In an October 2006 article entitled “Nazi Tactics by Israel and America in the Phony War on Terror,” Fischer opens with -

As a Jew who witnessed the loss of 6,000,000 of my fellow Jews, most likely including members of my own extended family who were still in Europe, in the brutal Nazi slaughter of the Holocaust, I believe I know Nazi tactics when I see them.

The following images are from Khilafah.com, a website associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir , “Party of Liberation”, a Sunni, pan-Islamic political party urging the creation of a single Muslim Caliphate. The photos portray violence against Palestinian Hizb ut-Tahrir protesters by Palestinian Authority policeman. The villian in this case on this Islamist website is not the IDF.

The following post is by Tom Gross for National Review’s excellent media blog. The first part, referring to Ahmed Yousef’s op-ed in The New York Times and Washington Post, is a perfect example of how Arab terrorist leaders use our own media to lessen the West’s willingness to do what is necessary to defeat them. Bin Laden and Hassan Nasrallah do likewise, albeit rather crudely. More subtle means include cultivating self-censorship and access journalism among Western reporters, or having those who support Jihad against the West pose as journalists for international news agencies (see Abul Taher and Dilpasier Aslam, or, of course, Talal Abu Rahmah).

The second piece of the post, about the threats of new Qassams, highlights the ridiculousness of those who call for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. While the rockets remain inaccurate, sometimes flying backward or falling back into Gaza, Hamas has managed to smuggle vast amounts of first-rate explosives and weapons into Gaza.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007
NY TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST “COMMENT WRITER” THREATENS TO KILL ISRAELIS

In June, I wrote an item about how Ahmed Yousef, senior advisor to deposed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, had become the new darling of the comment editors at The New York Times, Washington Post, and the NY Times-owned International Herald Tribune.

Today on MSNBC, Dan Abrams did a segment on Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the rape victim flogging decision. It is important to note that MSNBC fulfilled a journalistic obligation to its viewers by reporting that the Saudis had not given them access to the victim or permission to film in Qatif, the victim’s hometown.  Eager to protect their access to repressive regimes, networks and reporters have been known to slant their coverage in favor of those who restrict them.

Abrams’ piece highlights the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, saying the can’t drive, can’t vote, and can’t work without the permission of a male relative. Abrams also points out the recent Saudi release of terrorists, the Saudi Foreign Minister’s refusal to shake Olmert’s hand in Annapolis, and the fact that 41% of foreign terrorists in Iraq are Saudi.

Abrams fails to tie the plight of women and non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia with the larger Arab society. He would have found that Saudi Arabia is not unique, although the Saudis are among the most stringent enforcers of Sharia. But he does what many in the media are unwilling to do- criticize and judge a non-Western society as a Westerner.

Here is the video. Does he get it right?

Saudis to punish sexually-assaulted teen?

(Hattip to Harry at Squaring the Boston Globe) The International Herald Tribune ran an article today on the Muslim immigrant riots in France. The IHT barely mentions religion or ethnicity (only that of two interviewees), and does not indicate that there is any connection between race and the riots, when it is clearly a crucial factor. As Squaring the Boston Globe says, “Imagine newspapers reporting on the 1960s urban rioting in the US without even mentioning race.”

Riot violence is escalating in France, police groups say
By Katrin Bennhold Published: November 27, 2007

VILLIERS-LE-BEL, France: Dodging rocks and projectiles, the police lined the streets of this tense suburb Tuesday where angry youths have vowed to seek revenge for the deaths of two teenagers who died in a collision with a police car.

Police union officials warned that the violence was escalating into urban guerrilla warfare with shotguns aimed at officers – a rare sight in the last major outbreak of suburban unrest, in 2005.

The Annapolis conference has brought out the same voices who cling stubbornly to beliefs that were proven wrong by Oslo, Lebanon, and Gaza. These beliefs are based on faith in the face of facts- faith that the Palestinians want a normal, functioning democracy just like the Israelis, faith that a peace process will cause Palestinian leaders to relinquish dreams of Israel’s destruction, faith that Palestinian leaders’ actions and statements are not indicators of what their true intentions.

Amos Oz is one of those stubborn voices. He published an article on Nov. 21st on Ynet using the tired “both sides” argument- both sides are threatened by extremists, both sides truly want peace.

Martin Sherman responded to Oz in his Nov. 24 Ynet article. He attacks Oz’s dangerous unwillingness to deal with the implications of the actual events of the past decade. One wonders what the Palestinians have to do to knock Oz from his ideological perch.

Defeating the demagogues
“The minute we leave south Lebanon we will have to erase the word Hizbullah from our vocabulary, because the whole idea of the State of Israel versus Hizbullah was sheer folly from the outset. It most certainly will no longer be relevant when Israel returns to her internationally recognized northern border. ”

Amos Oz in “Try a Little Tenderness” (Interview) Ha’aretz, March 17, 2000

As the above excerpt clearly illustrates, Amos Oz’s considerable literary talents do not translate into commensurate political acumen.

The following article is from The Daily Mail-

A British teacher is facing 40 lashes in Sudan for naming a teddy bear Mohammed as part of a primary school project.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, was being interrogated at a police station in the capital Khartoum last night over allegations that she has insulted Islam. An angry mob shouted death threats as the divorced mother-oftwo was taken away and the school has been closed until January amid fears of reprisals from Islamic extremists.
Mrs Gibbons has worked at the independent Unity High School, one of a number catering for the children of well-heeled Sudanese professionals and expatriate oil and aid workers, for three months.

This is the follow-up to a recent post ( EU Inaction Breeds Contempt in a Dictatorship of Floggers) on the Saudi rape victim who was sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man in a car. The perverse ‘justice’ in Saudi Arabia, elucidated by this case, is almost surreal. Let us hope that the mainstream media care enough about justice and a woman’s (and man’s) right not to be gang-raped to overcome the prevalent Western hesitance to criticize non-Western cultures.

Saudi rape VICTIM sentenced to 200 lashes ‘admits to affair’
A teenage rape victim sentenced to 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia has confessed to cheating on her husband, according to authorities in the kingdom. The Saudi Justice Ministry also condemned foreign interference in the case and insisted the punishment would be carried out.

A spokesman yesterday maintained the ruling was legal and that the woman had “confessed to doing what God has forbidden”. Officials also added that the woman and her husband were “convinced on the verdict and agreed to it”.

At the outset of the July/August 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel enjoyed the support of many countries in the West, especially the United States and Britain. As the war continued, the media’s and human rights NGO’s reports of Israeli human rights violations began to erode that support. The incident at Qana was the watershed moment at which the efforts of Western countries were directed at bringing the war to a speedy close, at Israel’s expense. Israel ended up agreeing to a cease-fire that fulfilled few of her demands at the outset of the war- the kidnapped soldiers were not returned, and Hezbollah remained armed and intact. The skewed information received in Western governments had a direct impact on Israel’s ability to achieve her objectives.

There are those who are  constructing the arena of popular ideas  about the Israeli- Palestinian peace process in such a way that Israel will emerge as the responsible party when the Annapolis talks fail. This is reminiscent of those who blame the failure of Oslo on Israeli settlements, and not on Palestinian terror and rejectionism directed by Yasser Arafat. To prepare the contemporary battlefield, they argue for engagement with Hamas. Knowing that Israel will refuse, and that Hamas itself will torpedo any progress, they are then free to point a finger at Israel’s intransigence.

Engaging with Hamas would undo the progress made by Israeli and international pressure and isolation. Hamas’ approval ratings have fallen below those of Fatah, and they are unable to point to any economic gains since coming to power. Legitimizing Hamas rule now leaves two options- leaving them in power as the de facto Palestinian ruler for years to come, or unleashing a Defensive Shield mini-war in Gaza.

Moreover, Hamas has already started its campaign against the Annapolis conference. The Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center released an overview of Hamas’ efforts in recent weeks as the conference approaches. Noah Pollak wrote the following article in Commentary’s blog, Contentions.

Annapolis: Engaging With What?
Noah Pollak – 11.21.2007 – 15:30
Yesterday I attended two Annapolis-related presentations in Washington, the first at the New America Foundation and the second at the National Press Club, sponsored by The Israel Project. The events offered a useful contrast in the way that two camps view not just the state of the peace process, but the conflict itself. The Israel Project symposium featured Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz, Tamara Cofman Wittes of Brookings, and David Wurmser, the former Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney. This was by far the more interesting presentation, as the three participants were serious people trafficking in serious ideas.

Assuming the allegations in the New York Times article are true, what is more disturbing- that the AP would be so careless with their background checking that they would employ Mr. Hussein, or that the work of an Iraqi insurgent does not immediately stand out among AP’s other reports?

The problems that arise from employing local reporters in Arab countries are not unique to Iraq. Does the name Talal Abu-Rahma ring any bells? (hat tip- S.A.)

The American military is sending an Iraqi photographer for The Associated Press it accuses of aiding the insurgency into Iraq’s criminal justice system, according to the American authorities and The A.P.The photographer, Bilal Hussein, was part of an 11-member team that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography in 2005. He has been detained without charge since April 2006.

A spokesman for the American military in Iraq, Maj. Brad Leighton, said Mr. Hussein was held after soldiers found explosive devices, insurgency propaganda and surveillance photographs of an installation for American-led forces during a routine patrol when they entered his apartment in 2006.

The following article is by Prof. Barry Rubin, contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center. Prof. Rubin discusses Islamic “Westophobia”, often overlooked in Western and Arab culture, both of whom tend to blame the West for the woes of underdeveloped regions.

The idea that poverty, relative backwardness, violence and instability must be caused by external circumstances is ingrained in much of the Western intelligentsia. It contributes to a tendency to apologize for those regimes and radical groups that are the main cause of continued stagnation and suffering in the Middle East.In fact, of course, these problems are usually based more on history, culture, geography, ideology and choices made.

James Carroll’s recent editorial in The Boston Globe is a thinly veiled criticism of the West’s efforts to combat fundamentalist Islam. He uses Rene Girard’s scapegoat theory of ritualized violence to equate jihadi terror and the West’s response, claiming war ultimately turns into violence  for violence’s sake, devoid of real rationale or strategic underpinnings. He reads Girard literally and uncritically, and does not deal with possible strategic reasons for military decisions he describes. 

THE INTERPLAY of religion and violence is considered by some a mark only of primitive culture. When the jihadist cries “God is Great” before detonating his explosive vest, or when, conversely, the Crusades are invoked to justify assault on radical Islam, secular critics can indulge a satisfying sense of superiority over believers, clinging to holy war.

Carroll is suggesting that the response to radical Islam is comparable to the terrorist’s violence itself. One is a religiously-inspired campaign of violence that in which Islam is the central and critical feature, the other is a secular, rational defense, even if the word “crusade” has been used a couple of times in the past six years.  

In the United States, the once common religious references of the Bush administration – the war on terrorism defined in categories of good and evil, for example – seem discredited, if only by failures of policy. War-justifying appeals to the rhetoric of faith are suddenly out of fashion, but that does not mean that a subliminal link between religion and violence no longer exists. The “secular” is not all that secular.

In archaic religion, violence and the sacred were explicitly joined.

And are still joined in fundamentalist Islam.