Israel Matzav

What's a liberal?

Heh (Hat Tip: Jack W).

Labels: liberalism, Muslim treatment of women, Muslims, Republicans, women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:26 PM 0 comments

Video: Egyptian sexual harassment at its finest at Cairo University

Remember Lara Logan? If you thought that a sexual assault in the world's largest Arab-Muslim country on a high profile television reporter, whose story was told around the world, was going to change the behavior of the Egyptian masses, you were dead wrong.

This video was shot at Cairo University where - one would think - a higher class of people hangs out than elsewhere in Cairo. In other words, you should assume that this video includes footage of the most intelligent, 'high class' Egyptians.

Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.



The reactions to this video are utterly predictable for an Arab Muslim country.

The young girl, with long blonde hair and a pink shirt, pink shoes and jeans, can be seen in the video, uploaded to YouTube, walking through the university campus as a group of men gather around her and whistle and shout profanities at her.

The Saudi television channel reported that a group of men also attempted to remove her clothing, which cannot be seen in the clip.

University guards were forced to escort her until the she was safely off campus. 

Adding to the controversy, the Dean of Cairo University Law School, Gaber Nassar, described the student's outfit as "a bit unconventional" and implied that she was responsible for the harassment it caused.

“This girl entered the university wearing an abaya (loose cloak) and then took it off in the faculty, and appeared with those clothes, that caused, in reality -- but this doesn't justify at all [the incident],” Nassar said on private Egyptian channel ONTV.

Later, Nassar realized that his reaction wasn't very smart, and tried to walk it back.

Nasser later claimed he was misquoted and justified his response on Twitter. 

"I assure that this is not true and I apologize for the misunderstanding and I repeat that those who (harassed the girl) will be severely punished,” he wrote.

Right.... If they ever find them.

Sexual harassment of women in the Arab world in general and in Egypt in particular is much worse than just about anyplace else.

While Logan's assault is horrifying, it's not surprising. The Arabs in general - and the Egyptians in particular - are known for this sort of thing. This is from a 2006 post by the Sandmonkey - one of the first things I ever read on his blog.

The story is as follows for the those of you who didn't hear about it: It was the first day of Eid, and a new film was opening downtown. Mobs of males gatherd trying to get in, but when the show was sold out, they decided they will destroy the box office. After accomplishing that, they went on what can only be described as a sexual frenxy: They ran around grabbing any and every girl in sight, whether a niqabi, a Hijabi or uncoverd. Whether egyptian or foreigner. Even pregnant ones. They grabbed them, molested them, tried to rip their cloths off and rape them, all in front of the police, who didn't do shit. The good people of downtown tried their best to protect the girls. Shop owners would let the girls in and lock the doors, while the mobs tried to break in. Taxi drivers put the girls in the cars while the mobs were trying to break the glass and grab the girls out. It was a disgusting pandamonium of sexual assaults that lasted for 5 houres from 7:30 PM to 12:30 am, and it truns my stomach just to think about it.

I called my father when I heard of that happening, and he informed me that he didn't hear of it at all. They watched Al Jazeerah, CNN, flipped through opposition newspapers, and nothing. Nada. Nobody mentioned it. As if it didn't happen.

But it did.

...

Now, the egyptian blogsphere has been abuzz in debate over the incident. Some are writing posts on why it happend, possible causes, what it means, the social and political factors that could possibly lead to this behavior, and quite honestly, I can't be botherd. I don't care why it happend. Rape is not up for debate. I just care that it happend. What we should discuss right now isn't what caused it, but what kind of horrible punishment that should be enacted on any egyptian male who thinks that it is well into his right to sexually harass a female on the street. That's it. Pure and simple.

I am often told that I am too westernized or too liberal by people I know, and they are not wrong or inaccurate. My values are for the most part western values. However, there are two middle-eastern traits in me that I can never give up: The first is my stupid insistince on always paying for the bill when I am with a girl I am dating, and the second is my protectiveness of women. I have no tolerance for those who assault women sexually in any way, and that almost got me kicked out of my school in Boston when I broke the leg of one of my roommates who raped a friend of mine. The incident only resulted in him getting a broken leg because people stoped me before I killed him. And I had the full intention of killing him. Rapists do not deserve to live. And that's how I feel towards every single one of those pieces of shit that attacked women on the streets of cairo the other day.

People can debate solutions based on dialogue, education, or whatever and that's their right. My solution is far simpler: Any egyptian man whose mother raised him right should beat the living crap of any man he sees on the street that assaults or harasses a female. Think of them as your sisters, and act accordingly. The Police isn't interested in protecting the women, and that's fine, but that means that we should take this job as our own. Those who insist on acting like animals will be treated as such, and deserve no sympathy or mercy from us. I assure you, if we did this, if we undertook this as part of our national duty, there will no longer be a problem on our streets.

That is all!

There's another point here. Note that the woman in the video is blonde and is wearing her hair loosely. Several years ago, the wife of a friend confided in me that she had been raped before they were married. She was assaulted by an Arab man right here in Jerusalem, and she told me that she attributed the assault that she was blond and that she was wearing her hair loose. She said that blonds have to be particularly careful around Arab men, and she advised wearing their hair tight and in a bun. Look at the woman again. See what I mean?

Labels: Egypt, Egyptian treatment of women, Islamic treatment of women, Muslim treatment of women, sexual harassment

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:45 AM 0 comments

Boo Hoo

Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin posts a rant after she is deported from Egypt to Turkey instead of being allowed into Gaza for - get this - International Women's Day. Meanwhile, her fellow travelers, pictured above, remain at Cairo airport.

Just the other day I hopped on a plane to Egypt, eager to join the international delegation of 100 women headed to Gaza for International Women’s Day. Little did I know I would be stopped at the Cairo airport, detained, held overnight in a cell, then in the morning brutally assaulted by Egyptian authorities. They threw me to the ground, stomped on my back, handcuffed me so tightly they dislocated my shoulder, and then deported me to Turkey.

Now the Egyptian authorities are blocking most of the remaining delegates from entering Egypt and traveling to Gaza. It has been frustrating and disappointing for us, but we cannot forget that almost two million Palestinians remained trapped in Gaza while the Egyptian Rafah border remains closed or tightly controlled

What happened to me was traumatizing, but is minor compared to what Egyptian activists are going through, including women. Thousands of peaceful Egyptian demonstrators have been killed or jailed by the Military Junta since the July 2013 military coup.

And just how does this moron think that Hamas is treating 'Palestinian' women in Gaza? Here's an example.

There's only one country in the Middle East which strives to treat its women like human beings. But Benjamin and her ilk cannot even acknowledges that country's existence. Jew hatred takes precedence over women's rights for these self-proclaimed women's rights activists.

Labels: Arab treatment of women, Cairo, Code Pink, Egypt, Egyptian treatment of women, Gaza, Hamas, Leftist anti-Semitism, Muslim treatment of women, women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:15 PM 3 comments

Muslim graduation picture

Heh (Hat Tip: Jack W).

Labels: Islam, Muslim treatment of women, Muslim world

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:53 AM 0 comments

Stop 'Palestinian' gender apartheid

Indeed.

Labels: Muslim treatment of women, Palestinians, women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:43 PM 0 comments

Sickness: Israeli judge says 'some girls enjoy being raped'

I don't usually do the court thing (I'm not a litigator), but about five years ago, a friend in a messy divorce case convinced me to help him out by going to court and interrogating his ex-wife about some financial documents - including her US tax return - that his Israeli lawyers did not understand. One of the papers involved was a letter to someone called the Foreign Currency Controller, whose approval you needed to transfer foreign currency out of Israel until about 15 years ago. The letter, which the woman admitted to have signed, asked for the transfer of a seven-figure sum to an account held by a company of which she was the sole owner in an offshore jurisdiction. The request had been approved,  but when I asked where the money was, the woman said to ask her ex-husband, whose name was nowhere to be found in the letter. She claimed 'he put it in front of me and I signed it without knowing what it was.' I had her nailed. But as I went in for the kill, the judge looked down from the bench and said "my wife trusts me absolutely, and if I handed her a piece of paper asking her to sign away her rights in our apartment, she would sign it without knowing or asking me what it was."

Until this morning, I thought that kind of bias in the Israeli court system was limited to that particular court, but that apparently is not the case. The Jewish Press reports that a judge of the Tel Aviv district court is hearing a case in which a 13-year old Jewish girl who was raped by four 'Palestinians' is seeking to have the attack classified as a terror attack. The judge, Nissim Yeshaya, said, "[Th]ere are some girls who enjoy being raped." Yes, really.

In Israel, a Victim of Terrorism is a person injured as a result of a terrorist act committed for nationalistic reasons, in Israel or abroad.

Victims of terrorist attacks are eligible for compensation, pursuant to the Compensation for Victims of Hostilities Act of 1970.

During the hearing, the young woman’s attorney, Roni Aloni-Sadovnik, a well known feminist lawyer, tried to convince the panel of judges, headed by Retired Tel Aviv District Court Judge Nissim Yeshaya, that there are cases of rape whose circumstances justify recognition as an act of terrorism committed for nationalistic reasons.

Attorney Aloni-Sadovnik later described the scene that ensued to Israel Army Radio: “In the midst of the passionate debate, he (Judge Yeshaya) suddenly said aloud, in earshot of everyone present, ‘There are some girls who enjoy being raped.’”

“The room fell into silence,” the attorney continued her description. “Even the panel members were silent for several minutes. And he didn’t even get what he had just said. He didn’t understand why everyone became quiet all of a sudden.”

Now, you might have thought that Yeshaya is a flaming Leftist who is trying to avoid the expansion of the definition of 'terror attack' (which is what I thought when I saw this story). Most of the Israeli judiciary leans hard left. But surprisingly, that does not appear to be the case. Go and figure. The bias toward women apparently goes both ways in the Israeli court system - for and against women.Shameful.

Labels: Israeli courts, Muslim treatment of women, religion of rape, women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:15 PM 1 comments

CNN Reporter: ' 'The end justifies the means when Jews are the victims'

This is an incredible interview as CNN reporter Erin Burnett asks former First Lady Laura Bush a disgusting question.

In a segment about the George W. Bush Institute's Women's Initiative Fellowship Program and its involvement with a group of Egyptian women, Burnett asked Mrs. Bush if the United States needs to "accept" anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism "when we want to make change"

And of course Laura Bush tells her 'no.'

Let's go to the videotape.



More here.

Labels: anti-Semitism, CNN, liberal media bias, mainstream media, Muslim treatment of women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:31 PM 2 comments

Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, November 13.

1) Diehl vs. Obama

A few weeks ago, in A short guide to the Benghazi issue, Barry Rubin wrote:

As noted above, the establishment view today is that America has been a bully in the past, acting unilaterally and not respecting the views of others. Obama has said this directly when speaking to foreign — including Middle Eastern — audiences.
But how does one stop being a bully? By showing that one isn’t tough and doesn’t protect one’s interests fiercely. Thus, in the Benghazi case, the U.S. government didn’t send the ambassador to Benghazi with Americans to guard him, nor did the consulate have Americans to provide security. To do so would be to show disrespect for the Libyans, to act in a way that might be perceived of as imperialistic.
Similarly, the president would not call in an airstrike against the attackers or send an armed rescue team to the consulate because to do so would have signaled an arrogance and aggressiveness, putting Americans first and not acting as a citizen of the world.

A few days ago, in The red flags in Obama's foreign policy, Jackson Diehl wrote:

Is “leading from behind” an unfair monicker for this? Then call it the light footprint doctrine. It’s a strategy that supposes that patient multilateral diplomacy can solve problems like Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability; that drone strikes can do as well at preventing another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland as do ground forces in Afghanistan; that crises like that of Syria can be left to the U.N. Security Council.
For the last couple of years, the light footprint worked well enough to allow Obama to turn foreign policy into a talking point for his reelection. But the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 should have been a red flag to all who believe this president has invented a successful new model for U.S. leadership. Far from being an aberration, Benghazi was a toxic byproduct of the light footprint approach — and very likely the first in a series of boomerangs.
...
But ultimately the disaster in Libya derived from Obama’s doctrine. Having been reluctantly dragged by France and Britain into intervening in Libya’s revolution, Obama withdrew U.S. planes from the fight as quickly as possible; when the war ended, the White House insisted that no U.S. forces stay behind. Requests by Libya’s fragile transition government for NATO’s security assistance were answered with an ill-conceived and ultimately failed program to train a few people in Jordan.

There are similarities in these two critiques. (There are also significant differences. Diehl sees Obama's misreading of the situation in Libya as a tactical failure that likely will be repeated elsewhere, not necessarily as part of a larger conceptual failure to understand the Middle East as Rubin does.) Both however fault the Obama administration for not comprehending the dangers to America interests in Libya.

Diehl's critique is notable for another reason. Diehl is a member of the Washington Post's editorial board, which enthusiastically endorsed President Obama for another term. Unfortunately his critique did little to dampen the enthusiasm of the endorsement.

2) Friedman vs. Israel

Thomas Friedman used the occasion of President Obama's re-election to return to his favorite topic: bashing Israel, in his Sunday column My President is busy. Aside from demonstrating his ignorance about suing Google, Friedman makes a couple of mistakes. 

You should be so lucky that the president feels he has the time, energy and political capital to spend wrestling with Bibi to forge a peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I don’t see it anytime soon. Obama has his marching orders from the American people: Focus on Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, not on Bethlehem, Palestine, and focus on getting us out of quagmires (Afghanistan) not into them (Syria). No, my Israeli friends, it’s much worse than you think: You’re home alone.
...
Is this good for Israel? No. It is unhealthy. The combination of America’s internal focus, the post-Arab awakening turmoil and the exhaustion of Palestinians means Israel can stay in the West Bank indefinitely at a very low short-term cost but at a very high long-term cost of losing its identity as a Jewish democracy. If Israelis want to escape that fate, it is very important that they understand that we’re not your grandfather’s America anymore.

Since he has nothing substantive to criticize Israel for, he returns to the trope about the demographic threat. But the occupation has, for the most part, been over since late 1995. The only remaining need is to establish the boundaries of a Palestinian state. However now Fatah, due to Abbas's mismanagement, is too weak to make a deal and Hamas cannot be trusted to make one, what is Israel to do? Obama could insist on a deal, but it would never work. It is good not "unhealthy" that he ignore the Palestinian issue right now.

To begin with, the rising political force in America is not the one with which Bibi has aligned Israel. As the Israeli columnist Ari Shavit noted in the newspaper Haaretz last week: “In the past, both the Zionist movement and the Jewish state were careful to be identified with the progressive forces in the world. ... But in recent decades more and more Israelis took to leaning on the reactionary forces in American society. It was convenient to lean on them. The evangelists didn’t ask difficult questions about the settlements, the Tea Party people didn’t say a word about excluding women and minorities or about Jewish settlers’ attacks and acts of vandalism against Palestinians and peace activists. The Republican Party’s white, religious, conservative wing was not agitated when the Israeli Supreme Court was attacked and the rule of law in Israel was trampled.” Israel, Shavit added, assumed that “under the patronage of a radical, rightist America we can conduct a radical, rightist policy without paying the price.” No more. Netanyahu can still get a standing ovation from the Israel lobby, but not at U.C.L.A.

Seth Mandel wrote an excellent rejoinder to the Shavit argument that Friedman embraces. Frankly, I don't know if Shimon Peres would have been warmly received at UCLA during the 1990's. The problem isn't Israeli policy or politics, but the vicious hatred of Israel perpetuated in certain precincts during the past several decades. Friedman, with his bashing of Israel provides cover for this ugliness. (If his reference here to the "Israel lobby" is a sly reference to Congress, then he is part of the vast anti-Israel crowd.) 

The other day, in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority declared: “Palestine for me is the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital. This is Palestine. I am a refugee. I live in Ramallah. The West Bank and Gaza is Palestine. Everything else is Israel.”
This was a big signal, but Bibi scorned it. The Israeli novelist David Grossman wrote an open letter to Netanyahu in Haaretz, taking him to task: “This is a bit embarrassing, but I will remind you, Mr. Netanyahu, that you were elected to lead Israel precisely in order to discern these rare hints of opportunity, in order to transform them into a possible lever to extricate your country from the impasse in which it has been stuck for decades.”

The most charitable explanation for Abbas's statement was that it was a public relations gambit to change Israeli  public opinion. However, as Khaled Abu Toameh pointed out, Abbas's own campaign to define the right of return as "sacred" meant that there's little support among the Palestinian public for any sort of compromise. There is plenty of blame to assign to the Palestinians for the lack of a final agreement; one only criticizes Israel exclusively if one is willfully ignorant.

3) Women power

In her Sunday Observer column Carol Giacomo of the New York Times wrote Women Fight to Define the Arab Spring:

Even in Tunisia, where secularists have a stronger voice and Ennahda has espoused more temperate views than most Islamist parties, women had to take to the streets in protest over efforts by some of the more conservative assembly members to dilute protections for women contained in a 1956 law. The Islamists wanted language in the constitution to say that the roles of men and women are “complementary.” The secularists, fearful of ceding any ground, insisted that men and women should have “the same rights and duties” and added an assurance that the state will guarantee women’s rights. Ennahda leaders say that the final document will unambiguously endorse gender equality and universal rights. But until the constitution is formally adopted, no one can be sure.
Still, the Arab Spring has allowed Muslim girls and women to dream big dreams. “For young girls to now tell me they want to be the future president, minister of defense, these are things I never imagined,” Ms. Murabit wrote in an e-mail. But enshrining rights in a constitution and making sure they are carried out are big challenges.

How's that working out in Egypt?

An article at the Muslim Brotherhood's website last week tells us:

On family and women, article 68 states equality between men and women without prejudice to the provisions of Islamic law; so international treaties that call for violating Sharia in any way cannot achieve such purposes, like attempts to legalize homosexuality or sexual relations outside wedlock, and so on.

I'm skeptical that is a Western conception of equality. Even so Elder of Ziyon observes:

The constitution itself deals with religion somewhat inconsistently; while it says "Islam is the state religion" and "the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main sources of legislation" it also calls for equality of various groups depending on which draft is being used. For example, the language saying that women are equal to men has recently been dropped from the document. Other drafts seemed to allow freedom of religion only to Christians and Jews, and no others.

Fortunately the astute folks at the New York Times know where the real problem with gender equality is. A recent opinion article More Women, but Not Nearly Enough, argues:

Does this mean the next Congress will be more attentive to the needs of children, single mothers and Americans who are vulnerable because of low income, poor health and other disadvantages? Sadly, no. Our research shows that female lawmakers significantly reshape policies only when they have true parity with men. In other words, while Tuesday’s electoral gains should be celebrated, we’ve got a very long way to go.

Glad to know that the New York Times has its priorities straight.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Benghazigate, leading from behind, Middle East Media Sampler, Muslim treatment of women, New York Times, right of return, Soccer Dad, Tom Friedman

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:16 PM 0 comments

Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, September 7.

1) Platform diving

Ed Lasky writes that President Obama knew that there was no mention of Jerusalem and still approved the publication of the platform like that.

It was only when blowback occurred that could hurt his political prospects that he stepped forward and inserted the language to assuage critics.

Furthermore Lasky writes (in agreement with what Shmuel Rosner wrote) that it was likely Robert Wexler who contributed the language about the Middle East.

Rick Richman showed that the administration has a history with Jerusalem:

Initially approving a platform that omitted the prior provisions, and then demonstrating in the process of restoring one of them that the omissions were not inadvertent, is the culmination of a longer process: (1) administration spokespersons who repeatedly refused to identify the capital of Israel; (2) a formal warning to the Supreme Court against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as being in Israel on the passports of Americans born there; (c) doctoring pictures on the White House website regarding Vice President Biden’s 2010 visit to “Jerusalem, Israel” (and similar references in State Department documents); and (4) failing to visit Jerusalem despite requests by liberal Israeli columnists, every Jewish Democrat in Congress, friendly rabbis, and the Israeli prime minister.

Related opinion from memeorandum.

In support, In Context shows that the omission of Jerusalem from the platform is historically unique:

Since 1968, with the sole exception of the rather odd platform (more like a manifesto) adopted in 1988, every Democratic party platform has included language similar to that quoted above from 2008. Note that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a point to which every Democratic (or Republican) administration has refused to acquiesce once safely in office, was always explicitly acknowledged.

Seth Mandel observes that what we saw at the convention reflects what is going on in the Democratic Party:

In fact, not only is the Democratic Party divided on Israel, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out on CNN right after the debacle, the Democrats are practically split down the middle on this. He cited a Gallup poll from earlier this year showing that only 53 percent of Democrats—versus 78 percent of Republicans—side with Israel in the Middle East conflict.
Which leads to a larger point about the issue and the reason the Democrats went into damage control last night: the Democratic Party’s base is pulling it away from Israel. It’s disturbing that only half of Democrats sympathize with Israel, but as yesterday’s events showed, among the base sympathy for Israel is not nearly that high.

It could be concluded that the Obama administration's disinterest in Israel reflects an unfortunate trend within the Democratic party.

2) Bibi blows his stack

I had originally discounted recent reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu had gotten angry with the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro in a meeting. Now a third person who was at the meeting confirmed the story. Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told his version of the meeting on a recent radio show. Jeffrey Goldberg reports on the comments in Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between Netanyahu and American Ambassador. (via memeorandum)

Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "I can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange."
Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."

There has been a tendency (in the New York Times for example) to portray PM Netanyahu (as well as Defense Minister Barak) as overanxious to attack Iran. While Netanyahu certainly comes off as impatient here or at his "wits' end" it seems it is precisely because he's trying to avoid military action. What seems to be motivating Netanyahu is not aggression, but how best to defend his nation. The lack of a clear commitment form the Obama administration has put Netanyahu in an untenable situation.

David Weinberg observes:

In sum, many private agendas are impacting on the Iran debate and not enough people are taking the Iranian threat seriously. Left-wing Israelis eager to isolate Netanyahu and Barak beg to be reassured by the US. Some American Jews seek to distance themselves from Netanyahu and Barak – for fear of being accused again of dragging the US (or of Israel dragging the US) to war, as was the case with Iraq – so they mock Israeli leadership as nuts. Conservatives seek to portray Obama as a weakling for electoral purposes. Obama seeks to deflect attention from the fact that his ineffective diplomacy let the issue slide for the past four years. His defenders are preparing public opinion for a sell-out deal with the Iranians in 2013 that ignores Israel. As I said, everybody is playing kick the can. Meanwhile, the Iranian centrifuges keep spinning…

3) A Kinsleyesque gaffe in Jordan

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - Michael Kinsley

Two months ago in Israel is in good shape, Barry Rubin wrote:

Then there are the surviving regimes – notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the five Gulf emirates – who know the main threat to them is from Iran and revolutionary Islamists at home, not Israel. In fact, they realize Israel is a kind of protector for them since it is motivated and able to strike against those who also want to put their heads on the chopping block.

The Centre for Jewish and Israeli Affairs recently reported on a meeting its members held with King Abdullah of Jordan (h/t Elder of Ziyon):

King Abdullah engaged in a very open discussion about the challenges in the region – and in particular, those faced by Jordan. He noted that Jordan was carrying the economic brunt of the conflict in Syria. In particular, Jordan has been overwhelmed with almost 200,000 refugees, with an additional 100,000 expected. The cost – housing, food, school and medical care – is enormous and burdens an economy already strapped for cash, energy and water. We were asked to convey the message that Jordan requires immediate and increased foreign aid and investment in order to meet this challenge.
Of particular note was the King’s acknowledgment that Israel – which he views as Jordan’s key regional ally – has been highly responsive to his requests in the context of efforts to bring about a resumption of direct talks between Israel and the PA. King Abdullah further expressed the belief that achieving peace on the Israel-Palestinian front will make immeasurably easier the task of confronting other – even existential – challenges facing the region, including the ability to garner support from other Arab nations in relation to the Iranian nuclear threat.

(emphasis added by Elder of Ziyon)

I'm surprised that King Abdullah would acknowledge this. I guess like his father and unlike his Prime Minister, he likes reading Barry Rubin.

4) There's a reason it's not called the Sisterhood

The New York Times recently published a rather negative account of a woman's place in Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood, Family Life According to the Brotherhood:

Those broader efforts at shaping a conservative religious society, played out over decades by the Brotherhood, were seen as partly responsible for helping elect Mohamed Morsi president in June. At the time, Mr. Morsi, who resigned from the Brotherhood after taking office, gave assurances that he would protect the rights of women and include them in decision making. Less than three months into his presidency, though, Mr. Morsi has not fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman as a vice president. Instead, he named a team of 21 senior aides and advisers last week that included three women.
...
Many analysts and critics of the Brotherhood see that kind of philosophy, one that gives women independence so long as they maintain their traditional obligations, as effectively constraining women to established gender roles.
“There is an absence of a well-defined vision, so they use words like ‘religious restrictions,’ ” said Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a researcher of Islamic movements and a former member of the Brotherhood. “O.K., sure, so what exactly are those restrictions, so we can know them and figure out how to deal with them? As long as we don’t define what those limits are, then we can expand them to the point where women, practically speaking, cannot work.”

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, Dan Shapiro, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Jordan, Middle East Media Sampler, Muslim treatment of women, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:32 PM 0 comments

Photo essay: Arab girls in 'apartheid Israel'

We are often told how Arab girls in Israel suffer from 'apartheid.' The picture above is one of 15 that show how Arab girls really live in Israel. The rest of the photo essay is here. I challenge you to find any country in the Arab - Islamic world where Arab or Islamic girls and women are freer.

Labels: Arab treatment of women, Israeli apartheid, Muslim treatment of women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:40 AM 0 comments

Opening prayer at DNC led by advocate for Islamic state in America

At the Democratic National Convention's Jumah at the DNC event over the weekend, the opening prayer was led by Siraj Wahhaj, an advocate for an Islamic state in America, a "potential unindicted co-conspirator" in the first World Trade Center bombing, and a member of CAIR.

It's worth noting that the Democratic Party's friendliness toward Muslims has prompted an extraordinary gathering in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the Democratic National Convention begins on Sept. 4. As part of the pre-convention festivities, a "Jumah at the DNC" was held through Sept. 1 by the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), an Islamic nonprofit headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. The Washington Times estimates that "between 500 and 1,000 participants" attended the Jumah, while 20,000 had been predicted to attend the entire three-day event.

The opening prayer was led by Siraj Wahhaj, an advocate for an Islamic state in America, a "potential unindicted co-conspirator" in the first World Trade Center bombing, and a member of CAIR. Event co-organizer Jibril Hough has ties to Islamic terrorists as the imam at a Muslim Brotherhood-owned mosque in Charlotte. That mosque is listed by the U.S. Justice Department as an "unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history."

The Muslim-friendly Democrats have stayed mum on the subject of this ominous gathering in the shadow of their own convention. The silence is not surprising, given the recent Democratic response to an exposé on the infiltration of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

And Madeline Albright wonders how any woman could vote for Mitt Romney (Hat Tip: Memeorandum)? I wonder how any woman could vote for Obama or anyone else who would sponsor this type of event.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Islam, Muslim treatment of women, National Democratic Party

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:27 PM 2 comments

What a sweetheart of a guy (not!)

In Berlin, a man butchered his wife in front of their six children, then took her dismembered head and threw it off the roof of their apartment building. No, he's not Amish. And no, he's not a German Protestant either. He's from Turkey. Guess his religion. No, of course, the proper British newspapers aren't going to tell you (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).

A man is under arrest in Germany after killing his wife in front of his six young children and cutting her into pieces.

Orhan Sircasi then ran on to the roof of his apartment building clutching her severed head in one hand and a butcher's knife in the other.

The 32-year-old killer of Turkish origin fought off police as they tried to seize him early this morning by lunging at them with the knife and swinging the head like a club.

After he lunged at police with the severed head of his wife he threw it from the roof of his five storey apartment building to the street below.

He was overpowered on the rooftop in Berlin and taken into custody.

Then officers entered the apartment in the Kreuzberg district of the capital to find the dismembered body of his wife and the six children aged from nine months to ten years.

They were in a terrible state,' said a neighbour. 'He made them watch as he butchered their mother then cut her up into little pieces.'

Neighbours alerted police in the early hours of the morning after they heard screaming coming from the flat. It is unclear what caused the fatal row.

The children have been put under psychiatric observation as their father was charged with murder.

Excuses coming from the Left in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1....

Labels: Germany, Muslim treatment of women, Turkey

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:15 AM 0 comments

Whom the Muslim world hates

Mona Eltahawy pens a lengthy article about the status of women in the Arab-Muslim world, which she is free to do because she lives in the United States. I urge you to read the whole thing - it's quite blunt.

I find it interesting that she does not mention Israel, which is really too bad, because the contrast between how Israel treats its women and how they are treated in countries like Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia is stunning. I also wonder whether we would already have peace with the Arab-Muslim world if there were women in positions of power there. I would bet that we would at least be closer.

Don't hold your breath thinking we're going to find out anytime soon. The fact that Ms. Eltahawy does her writing from the US tells you all you need to know about that.

Labels: Egypt, Muslim treatment of women, Saudi Arabia, Yemen

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:51 AM 6 comments

Interview with woman who escaped 'honor killing' in 'Palestinian territories'

Another myth we often hear about Islam is that there are no honor killings. Here is testimony from a woman who was set on fire because she was pregnant and somehow survived. It's from French television and the woman was from the 'Palestinian territories.' I would love to have heard the entire interview because in addition to the (all-too-typical) story, she also mentions being taught to hate Jews.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Tundra Tabloids via Will)

Labels: honor killing, Muslim treatment of women

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:28 PM 6 comments

A shocking Muslim 'honor killing'

At the President's conference on Thursday, I heard Shimon Peres quip at least twice that the biggest obstacle to Arab advancement is Arab husbands. Perhaps he ought to be saying that to 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, who has ostensibly just wiped off the books laws in the 'Palestinian Authority,' which mandated leniency for honor killings. The case which allegedly got Abu Mazen to act was the case of the young lady at left, Aya Baradiya, a 20-year old who was murdered in a particularly tortuous fashion by her 37-year old uncle for wanting to marry someone of whom the uncle did not approve. Phyllis Chesler explains.

Over a year ago, on April 20, 2010, 20-year-old Aya Baradiya disappeared. Her paternal uncle, 37-year-old Iqab Baradiya, and two accomplices had kidnapped her, bound her hand and foot, and threw her down a well, leaving her to die a slow and painful death. Her remains were not found for more than a year.

Aya was a religious woman who wore a hijab. Her university classmates described her as “chaste and noble-minded.”

What crime did she commit? Aya wanted to marry a man. Her suitor went through the traditional channels. Her parents approved of the match but wanted her to wait until she graduated. Her uncle, 17 years older than she was, strongly disapproved of the engagement. And so he killed her.

But has Abu Bluff really wiped those laws off the books? Phyllis says that he has not.

In typical Arab style, President Abbas has said he has done something but he has really done nothing. He has not yet signed his vow into law or published it. Abbas has used the unexpected outcry against the (non-honor) murder of a young woman who is being called a “martyr,” and whose reputation was above reproach, to stage a symbolic but actually toothless response to the very real epidemic of honor killings among Arabs. According to experts, judges do not rely upon the “mitigating factor” provision when they hand down lenient sentences for honor murderers. According to Haaretz, a newspaper with which I generally do not agree, here are the facts about what Abbas did (and didn’t) do:

[A] review of the draft of the presidential decree indicates that judges in Palestinian courts, who showed leniency toward murderers – handing down sentences ranging from six months to three or four years in prison in such cases – did not necessarily rely on the two problematic clauses mentioned above, but rather, on other articles not even mentioned in the presidential decree.

Shimon Peres is right that the biggest obstacle to Arab advancement is Arab husbands. But what he won't admit is that it is also a huge obstacle to peace. Today, Arab women who need to escape their abusive families in Judea, Samaria and Gaza have only one place to turn... Israel. Can you imagine a 'peace treaty' with the 'Palestinian Authority' in which Israel is required to turn these women over to their abusive families? It would be immoral and for that reason it won't happen. 'Palestinian' society will have to treat women as human beings before they can enter into any treaties with us. And that's how it ought to be.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Abu Mazen, honor killing, Muslim treatment of women, Palestinian Authority

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:28 AM 17 comments

Video: 'Palestine' sucks

I know you're all going to love this Steven Crowder video, so let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).



Heh.

Labels: gay Palestinians, liberalism, Muslim treatment of women, Palestine

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:35 AM 11 comments

Female Kuwaiti Muslim politician trying to revive sex slavery

A female Kuwaiti Muslim politician has called for reviving the institution of sex slavery.

A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):

Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

The Arabic news website, Al Arabiya, has the sordid details, including a video of Mutairi addressing this topic. I summarize and translate various excerpts below (note: I am not making any of this up):

The Kuwaiti female activist begins by insisting that "it's of course true" that "the prophet of Islam legitimized sex-slavery." She recounts how when she was in Mecca, Islam's holiest city, she asked various sheikhs and muftis (learned, authoritative Muslims) about the legality of sex-slavery according to Sharia: they all confirmed it to be perfectly legal; Kuwaiti ulema further pointed out that extra "virile" men—Western synonyms include "sex-crazed," "lecherous," "perverted"—would do well to purchase sex-slaves to sate their appetites without sinning.

Here's a particularly interesting excerpt from her taped speech on the rules governing sex-slaves:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter's body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that's that.

She went on to offer concrete suggestions: "For example, in the Chechnyan war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don't see any problem in this, no problem at all."

Mutairi suggests the enslaved girls be at least 15 years-old.

There is no other religion that promotes this sort of thing in the 21st century. None whatsoever.

Labels: Muslim treatment of women, religion of rape, sex slaves

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:45 AM 4 comments

Another Lara Logan: NY Times photographer sexually harassed in Libya

I'm sure that this is all just a coincidence and that the treatment that New York Times photographer Lynsey Addario endured in captivity in Libya has nothing - nothing at all - to do with the treatment Lara Logan endured at the hands of a mob in Cairo and certainly nothing - nothing at all - to do with Arab Muslim attitudes toward women.

One man grabbed her breasts – the start of a pattern of sexual harassment she endured over the ensuing 48 hours.

‘There was a lot of groping,’ she said. ‘Every man who came in contact with us basically felt every inch of my body short of what was under my clothes.’

As she was being driven away from Ajdabiya, she said another of her captors stroked her head and told her repeatedly that she was going to be killed.

‘He was caressing my head in this sick way, this tender way, saying, "You’re going to die tonight. You’re going to die tonight",‘ she added.

Miss Addario was with Anthony Shadid, the paper’s Beirut bureau chief, photographer Tyler Hicks and reporter and videographer Stephen Farrell when they were seized while leaving the scene of fighting between rebels and Libyan government forces because they decided it had become too dangerous.

Their driver inadvertently drove into a checkpoint manned by troops loyal to the Libyan dictator.

‘I was yelling to the driver, "Keep driving! Don’t stop! Don’t stop!",' said Mr Hicks. ‘I knew that the consequences of being stopped would be very bad.’

There's nothing to see here, so just move on. They just sound like 'ordinary' adolescent males, don't they?

Labels: Arab treatment of women, Lara Logan, Lynsey Addario, Muslim treatment of women, rape, sexual harassment

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:14 PM 1 comments

Video: Putting women's rights back on the Middle East media agenda

Why does our mainstream media give the Arab and Muslim countries of the Middle East a pass when it comes to their treatment of women? I don't know. I'd suggest that it's the racism of no expectations. We don't expect these brutes to behave any differently, so we write it off by saying that we cannot expect them to behave differently.

On Tuesday, I chanced upon this post, which claims that Lara Logan wasn't raped at Tahrir Square in Cairo. The post is based upon nothing but the writer's impressions. As our rabbis tell us "lo ra'iti eino ra'aya" (the fact that I didn't see it doesn't prove anything). I don't believe that post for one minute. Sexual harassment of women is routine on the streets of Cairo. But if I had not read about it five years ago, I would not have known it from our mainstream media.

Let's see if we can change things, starting with getting our mainstream media to tell the truth.

Let's go to the videotape.

Labels: Arab treatment of women, Lara Logan, Muslim treatment of women, Tahrir Square

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:27 PM 2 comments