Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to destroy pyramids?
Will President Obama's friends from the Muslim Brotherhood destroy the pyramids?
The calls to do just that have already started (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum). I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.
According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypt's Great Pyramids--or, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabi'i, those "symbols of paganism," which Egypt's Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax. Most recently, Bahrain's "Sheikh of Sunni Sheikhs" and President of National Unity, Abd al-Latif al-Mahmoud, called on Egypt's new president, Muhammad Morsi, to "destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As could not."
This is a reference to the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's companion, Amr bin al-As and his Arabian tribesmen, who invaded and conquered Egypt circa 641. Under al-As and subsequent Muslim rule, many Egyptian antiquities were destroyed as relics of infidelity. While most Western academics argue otherwise, according to early Muslim writers, the great Library of Alexandria itself--deemed a repository of pagan knowledge contradicting the Koran--was destroyed under bin al-As's reign and in compliance with Caliph Omar's command.
However, while book-burning was an easy activity in the 7th century, destroying the mountain-like pyramids and their guardian Sphinx was not--even if Egypt's Medieval Mamluk rulers "de-nosed" the latter during target practice (though popular legend still attributes it to a Westerner, Napoleon).
Now, however, as Bahrain's "Sheikh of Sheikhs" observes, and thanks to modern technology, the pyramids can be destroyed. The only question left is whether the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt is "pious" enough--if he is willing to complete the Islamization process that started under the hands of Egypt's first Islamic conqueror.
Nor is such a course of action implausible. History is laden with examples of Muslims destroying their own pre-Islamic heritage--starting with Islam's prophet Muhammad himself, who destroyed Arabia's Ka'ba temple, transforming it into a mosque.
...
Much of this hate for their own pre-Islamic heritage is tied to the fact that, traditionally, Muslims do not identify with this or that nation, culture, heritage, or language, but only with the Islamic nation--the Umma.
And in the US, they refer to Jews as 'Israel firsters.' When will the refer to Muslims as 'Umma firsters'? Answer, never. Because many of the people who use the term 'Israel firsters' are
Jews who are ashamed of their own heritage.
Labels: Egyptian Islamization, Islam, Israel firsters, Jewish anti-Semitism, MJ Rosenberg
The American 'national interest' in UNRWA
You might recall that last week,
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) argued that funding UNRWA and not differentiating among the five million 'refugees' it supports is an American national interest. Leahy went on to accuse those who believe otherwise of dual loyalty. Daniel Greenfield
might make Leahy want to rethink his position if anyone in Vermont is listening.
“I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests,” Senator Leahy stated firmly. It is of course difficult to find as compelling a national interest as the UNRWA, a refugee agency created exclusively for the benefit of five million Arabs, approximately 30,000 of whom are actual refugees, but all of whom hate the United States.
Senator Leahy, who could not discover a national interest in the Balanced Budget Amendment, drilling for oil in ANWR or detaining Muslim terrorists, all of which he voted against; finally discovered a binding national interest 5,500 miles away in Jordan, where “refugee camps” like Baqa’a (pop. 80,000), which are virtually indistinguishable from local towns and cities, complete with block after block of residential homes, stores and markets, multi-story office buildings, schools, hospitals and assorted infrastructure, must not be looked at too closely.
As a city which will soon celebrate its 50 year anniversary, Baqa’a is older than many modern Israeli cities and is as much a refugee camp as any of them. The only difference between Baqa’a and Ariel, is that no one in Baqa’a does anything for themselves because they are all eternal refugees with an entire UN agency dedicated to wiping their bottoms for them. A unique and singular honor in a world full of authentic refugees who have been driven out by rape squads and genocide, without getting their own minders in blue.
Samuel Johnson said that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” but even Johnson would have had trouble understanding how a refusal to count who American aid money is going to is in the nation’s best interests. It is no doubt in the best interests of the denizens of Baqa’a and their Jordanian rulers, who need to spend that much less money taking care of their people, but ignorance certainly doesn’t do the United States and its interests any good. A refusal to seriously examine the books does, however, benefit the UNRWA and politicians like Leahy who continue to support this boondoggle.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Israel firsters, Mark Kirk, Palestinian refugees, Patrick Leahy, UNRWA
Leahy calls Kirk 'Israel firster' without calling him 'Israel firster'
Adam Kredo reports on this exchange involving
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) during the debate over Senator Mark Kirk's (R-Il) bill to count only 'Palestinians' who fled the 1948 war as 'refugees.'
While debating an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) that would examine exactly how many Palestinian refugees benefit from U.S. tax dollars, Leahy expressed that the proposal does not put “the United States’ interests first.”
“Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests,” Leahy said, emphasizing the words “United States.”
“It may give a momentary advantage to one side or the other after we spend all that money, but it hurts the United States’ interests,” Leahy said.
Observers in the room said they were taken aback by Leahy’s comments, which evoked the ongoing controversy over the term “Israel firster,” a slur that has its roots in the white supremacist movement and implies a person is putting the interests of the Jewish state over those of the U.S.
Leahy, of course, is now claiming that he didn't mean it 'that way.'
“When we heard this, a lot of people were taken aback, utterly surprised to hear a chairman of a powerful committee imply that several senators were pursuing an agenda that is not in America’s best interests,” said one GOP aide. “In the wake of news reports about the Center for American Progress and other left wing groups using arguably anti-Semitic language in criticizing pro-Israel policies, the senator’s comments certainly created a lot of pause.”
Asked to clarify Tuesday if Leahy was implying that those who supported Kirk’s amendment are making Israel’s interest an undue priority, a spokesperson for the Democratic senator bristled.
Leahy was merely “debating the amendment as written,” Leahy spokesperson David Carle told the Free Beacon. He was “talking about what the goal always is in this Senate, for pro-U.S. policy.”
Carle, who hung up before answering follow-up questions, said Leahy is looking to pursue legislation that is in the “best national interest of the U.S.”
Read the whole thing.
Unfortunately, accusations of dual loyalty have become acceptable in polite conversation in the United States. American Jews ought to be seriously concerned.
Labels: Israel firsters, Mark Kirk, Palestinian refugees, Patrick Leahy
Pascrell won't disavow dual loyalty slur
Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ),
a signer of the infamous Hamas 54 letter, is
refusing to disavow an Arab supporter who labeled Pascrell's primary opponent, Representative Steve Rothman, '
Israel's man in the 9th district.' This is from the second link.
New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell has no intention of distancing himself from a prominent Arab-American supporter who accused the state’s Jewish community—as well as his Democratic primary challenger, Rep. Steve Rothman—of being more loyal to Israel than America.
Earlier today, Pascrell surrogate Herb Klein, a former member of Congress, called the controversy a non-issue.
“The ongoing ‘controversy’ being laid at Bill Pascrell’s door as a result of an op-ed authored by someone not affiliated with the Pascrell campaign has proven to be a distraction from the issues confronting the 9th Congressional District’s Democratic voters,” Klein said.
...
“We are disappointed that Congressman Pascrell refuses to disavow his donor’s ridiculous and unfounded attack,” Rothman spokesperson Aaron Keyak said in a statement provided to the Free Beacon this afternoon.
“Mr. Assaf is a supporter of and donor to Congressman Pascrell,” Keyak said. “We stand by our request that Congressman Pascrell disavow these attacks and ask his supporters to stop this harmful, dishonest, and bigoted rhetoric. Questioning Congressman Rothman’s loyalty to America is a serious charge.”
Maybe I should register as a Democrat so
I can vote for Rothman. Hmmmm.
Labels: anti-Semitism, Campaign 2012, dual loyalty, Israel firsters
Hey - I still vote in that district
The Democratic primary in the newly reconstituted New Jersey 9th Congressional district features two incumbent Congressmen fighting for their political lives: Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell. The district also has a large Orthodox Jewish population where I used to live, and a large Arab population. Pascrell - who used to be my Congressman - was never known as a strong supporter of Israel. In fact, he was
one of the signers of the infamous Hamas 54 letter, which urged President Obama to force Israel to stop its blockade of Gaza.
Now, a leader of the Arab community has flung the '
Israel firster' designation at members of the Jewish community who are supporting Rothman.
Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, opined Sunday evening in the New Jersey Star-Ledger about a Democratic primary that the state’s pro-Israel community is closely watching. The race pits Rep. Steve Rothman, a veteran pro-Israel stalwart, against Bill Pascrell, a well-liked Democrat who boasts a solid voting base.
Assaf accused New Jersey’s Orthodox Jewish voters of transforming the race from a domestic duel between local lawmakers into a proxy war between the state’s Jewish and Muslim communities.
“Unquestionably, this primary election is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities,” Assaf wrote in an article headlined “Rothman is Israel’s man in District 9.”
“As total and blind support for Israel becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America’s,” Assaf added.
Assaf’s charge is reminiscent of the “Israel firster” slur, a borderline anti-Semitic allegation that stirred vigorous debate after it was bandied about by several writers at left-leaning media outlets. Jewish groups and others roundly condemned the smear, calling it a “dangerous political libel” that resonates “with historic and toxic anti-Jewish prejudices.”
Assaf—who donated at least $300 to the Pascrell campaign in 2004—publicly expressed his support for the lawmaker on Jan. 10 via a posting on Facebook. He wrote: “Pascrell is the right man. He has been most accessible and helpful to his constituents. The Arab and Muslim community must rise up to ensure Pascrell is the winner on June 5. I will do my part.”
Assaf also has been a vocal opponent of what he terms Israel’s “military occupation of Palestinian land.”
“I am truly troubled by your support for the Israeli apartheid barrier,” Assaf wrote in 2004 letter to the Star Ledger, referring to the Jewish state’s security wall, which wraps around portions of the Green Line and is meant to prevent acts of terrorism. “Only continued Palestinian resistance and collective world condemnation will ensure the barrier remains a temporary obstacle to peace and not a permanent boundary.”
In another article from 2010, Assaf declared that “Israel exists but I will never accept it as a Jewish state.”
“The Jewish state, a supposedly potential haven for all the Jews in the world in the case a second Holocaust comes about, should be recognized as a fact on the ground blackmailed into the ‘never again’ rhetoric,” Assef wrote while building the case that the Palestinians, as a precondition for peace talks, should not be forced to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Hmmm.
I actually spoke to someone at ECI a few years ago about
targeting Pascrell and they figured he was too strong to be beaten. They figured they could target his son after his retirement. My, how times change.
Labels: anti-Semitism, Campaign 2012, Israel firsters
Israel firsters and the jihad
Yisrael Medad sent me this graphic
along with this quote from Richard Landes'
Heaven on Earth:
"Thus the Jewish slap on the faces of the Christians continues, who apparently enjoy and allow this sort of humiliation and attack, and give them their other cheek so that the Jew can continue to slap the Christians—just as we see—ruling them in Europe through the Masons who dig the grave of Western civilization through corruption and promiscuity. Th e Crusader West continues like a whore who is screwed sadistically, and does not derive any pleasure from the act until aft er she is struck and humiliated, even by her pimps—the Jews in Christian Europe. Soon they will be under the rubble as a result of the Jewish conspiracy."
Heaven on Earth, p. 456; cited in Cook, Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic, p. 220.
Isn't it amazing how much those who worry about 'Israel firsters' think like the jihadis.
Labels: Islamic anti-Semitism, Israel firsters, Leftist anti-Semitism
Leftist blasts use of 'Israel firster'
Leftist Spencer Ackerman blasts the use of the term '
Israel firsters' by fellow Leftist MJ Rosenberg (pictured with another friend) among others.
Some on the left have recently taken to using the term “Israel Firster” and similar rhetoric to suggest that some conservative American Jewish reporters, pundits, and policymakers are more concerned with the interests of the Jewish state than those of the United States. Last week, for example, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald asked Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg about any loyalty oaths to Israel Goldberg took when he served in the IDF during the early 1990s. (On Tuesday, writer Max Blumenthal used a gross phrase to describe Goldberg: “former Israeli prison guard.”) The obvious implication is that Goldberg’s true loyalty is to Israel, not the United States. For months, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, has been throwing around the term “Israel Firster” to describe conservatives he disagrees with. One recent Tweet singled out my friend Eli Lake, a reporter for Newsweek: “Lake supports #Israel line 100% of the time, always Israel first over U.S.” That’s quite mild compared to some of the others.
“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree, one that many Jews will intuitively understand without knowing its specific history. It turns out white supremacist Willis Carto was reportedly the first to use it, and David Duke popularized it through his propaganda network. And yet Rosenberg and others actually claim they’re using it to stimulate “debate,” rather than effectively mirroring the tactics of some of the people they criticize.
Throughout my career, I’ve been associated with the Jewish left—I was to the left of the New Republic staff when I worked there, moved on to Talking Points Memo, hosted my blog at Firedoglake for years, and so on. I’ve criticized the American Jewish right’s myopic, destructive, tribal conception of what it means to love Israel. But it doesn’t deserve to have its Americanness and patriotism questioned. By all means, get into it with people who interpret every disagreement Washington has with Tel Aviv as hostility to the Jewish state. But if you can’t do it without sounding like Pat Buchanan, who has nothing but antipathy and contempt for Jews, then you’ve lost the debate.
This is tiresome to point out. Many of the writers who are fond of the Israel Firster smear are—appropriately—very good at hearing and analyzing dog-whistles when they’re used to dehumanize Arabs and Muslims. I can’t read anyone’s mind or judge anyone’s intention, but by the sound of it these writers are sending out comparable dog-whistles about Jews.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: anti-Semitic stereotypes, Israel firsters
