The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

An Anatomy of Surrender

Posted by Atilla89 on April 28, 2008

Firstly, I had a really great Pesach Seder, lots of people. I got a present from my aunt, a book called Tobruk by Peter Fitzsimons which I will start reading as soon as I get the chance. In the meantime, here’s a nice piece from Bruce Bawer detailing how the West has surrended culturally to Islamism. The paper talks about how the West’s media, acedemia and artists have betrayed their ideals (namely freedom of speech) to kowtow to Islamism. The byline of this article is Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia. Hat tip to LGF for this one. Here’s the link to the article.

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Actually after reading this, I sometimes wonder if in Australia we should have a Bill of Rights as well in order to further cement our ideals and values to stop Islamists or some other group trying to censor what we say. If anyone here has an opinion on this feel welcome to share it in the comments section.

Posted in Australian Politics, Europe, Islam, Islamism, Religion, Terrorism, U.S. Politics | Leave a Comment »

Why I Won’t Be Celebrating 60 Years Of Israel: Rebuttal

Posted by Atilla89 on March 14, 2008

For those who have not heard of Antony Loewenstein I suggest you Google his name now. To put it bluntly every single anti-Zionist will love this guy while everyone who stands for truth will despise him. He’s just written a most ridiculous article for the ABC, read it here. Now enjoy me showing just how false Loewenstein is.

Like Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s recent apology to the
Stolen Generations, the local Jewish community celebrated the gesture
of reconciliation to the indigenous population, but as I wrote in
Haaretz remained unwilling to extend this sentiment to the
Palestinians.

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because it is rightfully our land even though we were quite prepared to submit to the UN Resolution to divide it with the Palestinians.

The fact that Israel’s continued colonisation of the occupied territories has made a two-state solution almost impossible is unmentionable. The motion received bipartisan support.

Loewenstein talks of the settlements being a barrier to peace in the region. Let me demonstrate how that is false.

  • From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
  • From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.
  • In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.
  • One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.
  • In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.
  • Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html#b

However, Labor backbenchers were unhappy about the motion, with Julia
Irwin telling ABC radio that she found “it hard to congratulate a
country which carries out human rights abuses each day, and shows
blatant disregard for the United Nations.”

That is just blatantly false.

Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabs currently hold 8 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Israeli Arabs have also held various government posts, including one who served as Israel’s ambassador to Finland and the current deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. Oscar Abu Razaq was appointed Director General of the Ministry of Interior, the first Arab citizen to become chief executive of a key government ministry. Ariel Sharon’s original cabinet included the first Arab minister, Salah Tarif, a Druze who served as a minister without portfolio. An Arab is also a Supreme Court justice. Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel. More than 300,000 Arab children attend Israeli schools. At the time of Israel’s founding, there was one Arab high school in the country. Today, there are hundreds of Arab schools. In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled that the government cannot allocate land based on religion or ethnicity, and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#a

Though IDF actions have caused hardship for the Palestinian population, the IDF has continued to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided to Palestinians in need. For example, during just one 48-hour period (January 5-6, 2003), the IDF:

  • Coordinated the movement of Palestinians seeking medical care, assisting 40 to go to hospitals, including four patients from Gaza who were transferred to Israel for medical treatment.
  • Coordinated the movement of 284 Palestinians in the West Bank who were transferred by ambulance.
  • Coordinated the passage of building materials for the construction of a hospital in Kalkilya.
  • Coordinated the passage of humanitarian goods to Bethlehem.
  • Coordinated entry of ration cards sent by an international aid organization to the residents of Azoun.
  • Enabled the distribution of ration cards by the Red Cross in Salfit.
  • Coordinated the passage of agricultural produce and food between Muassi and Khan Yunis.
  • Coordinated the passage of an UNRWA team in Gaza to aid in the disposal of rubbish.
  • Arranged entry into Kalkilya for an Israeli Arab family from East Jerusalem to attend their son’s wedding.

Even at the height of military action, such as the operation to clean out the terrorist nest in the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces have gone out of their way to assist Palestinian non-combatants. In the case of the Jenin operation, for example, the hospital there was kept running with a generator delivered under fire by an Israeli officer. The best way to improve the situation for the Palestinians in the territories is for the Palestinian Authority to take the steps laid out by the Bush Administration — end the violence, reform its institutions, and elect new leaders — so that peace talks may resume and a settlement can be negotiated.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#l

Now are you starting to see why I abhor these people?

I joined the petition protesting the motion because it negates the
Palestinian narrative and celebrates, even white-washes, the ethnic
cleansing that took place in 1948. …

Huh? What is he on about?

The Palestinians knew, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the Jews were not trying to annihilate them; otherwise, they would not have been allowed to evacuate Tiberias, Haifa or any of the other towns captured by the Jews. Moreover, the Palestinians could find sanctuary in nearby states. The Jews, however, had no place to run had they wanted to. They were willing to fight to the death for their country. It came to that for many, because the Arabs were interested in annihilating the Jews, as Secretary-General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha made clear in an interview with the BBC on the eve of the war (May 15, 1948): “The Arabs intend to conduct a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

I am sure that he is thinking of Deir Yassin well read this source and decide for yourself.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#f

A new book by Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist now based in
Nazareth, reveals the real agenda of the Jewish state and its
Washington masters. Israel and the Clash of Civilizations methodically
argues that regional chaos actually helps, not hinders, their imperial
plans. “The actual goal of the Israeli strategy,” Cook writes, is to
convince Western policy makers that “a series of civil wars and the
partition of Arab states” is beneficial to their interests. He goes
on:

Imperial plans? Why would Israel give back the Sinai, a whole heap of Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and be prepared to evacuate settlements in the West Bank if they were imperialist. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t ‘imperialist’ imply the invasion of other countries in order to control them… Hasn’t Israel been doing the opposite of that in the above examples?

By tying the fates of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian
territories to the US occupation of Iraq, by miring the American
forces in the same, constant human rights abuses that Israeli forces
committed daily in the West Bank and Gaza, the two projects stood or
fell together. The futures of the Israeli and US occupations became
inextricably entwined. … Zionists in Australia refuse to acknowledge a recent poll in Israel
that found a majority of citizens want to engage with Hamas. They
ignore the on-the-ground reality that leaves a two-state solution dead
in its tracks. The alternative is a truly democratic state, neither
Jewish nor Muslim.

Ignoring the first part because that was addressed above. Is Loewenstein supporting a 1 state solution? Hasn’t that already been discredited because it would involve Israel committing demographic suicide? A majority of Arabs in this ‘1 state’ would turn it into an Islamic Arab state that may as well be renamed Palestine. Tell me, was that the goal of Zionism to live in an Arab Islamic state as a minority? Hell no!

Posted in Arabs, Hamas, IDF, Islam, Israel, Jews, Jordan, Middle-East, Palestine, Religion, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Appeasing Islam

Posted by Atilla89 on March 10, 2008

This guy, Pat Condell makes some very, very interesting points in his new video. I wouldn’t say that I would agree with him 100%, but 95% of it is definitely speaking to me. This line, in relation to Europe, is definitely one of his best “freedom was handed to us… is not ours to give it away…” Hat tip to LGF.

Posted in Europe, Islam, Islamism | 1 Comment »

UN Durban Follow Session: A Sign For Things To Come

Posted by Atilla89 on February 21, 2008

7 days ago I started talking about a counter conference against Durban II because I, like a lot of other people believe that Durban II will just by another bitch-fest about Israel and Zionism, dominated by Antisemitic Arab powers and their allies. Well, we’ve had an follow up session and guess what, there are no surprises as to what has happened at this conference. Read the whole thing here.

In what may be a portent of things to come, Islamic accusations against the West dominated a UN session today dedicated to follow-up of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa.

This week in Geneva saw the first meeting of the “Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards,” which was created by a UN Human Rights Council Resolution on follow-up to the 2001 Durban conference. Initiated by Algeria on behalf of Africa, it was adopted in December 2006 over the opposition of the EU, Canada and other democratic states on the Council. The resolution sought to “heed the decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism.”

So basically those that turned Durban I into a fiasco have launched this new meeting. Now we start to see the reasons why Israel, Canada and many political pundits and commentators don’t want another conference.

Algerian Deputy Permanent Representative Mohammed Bessedik drew thinly veiled comparisons of today’s treatment of Muslims to the Nazi atrocities against Jews. “The policy of targeting Muslims would actually aim at dehumanizing them by assaulting their identity to legitimize an attitude of racial discrimination similar to the one that targeted another Semitic people in the 20th century.” He described the threat of “reawakening the hydra of the anti-Semitic campaigns of the 20th century, which we now call Islamophobia.”

In thinly veiled jibes against Israel, “foreign occupation” was raised repeatedly by Islamic states. Syria and Algeria called it one of the worst forms of human rights violations. Egypt referred to countries that occupy other countries for a lengthy period as “a form of racism by itself” and “a racist regime of occupation.”

I think both those paragraph are pretty self-explantory. As well as this, the Arab and African countries aren’t troubling to cover their lobby for another of these conferences;

Senegal stressed the need for finding new language for contemporary manifestations of racism — another way of calling for a reopening of the Durban 2001 declaration.

Hopefully enough countries will boycott the Durban II conference enough to make it look like a farce and instead attend a counter conference proposed by Canadian Senator Jerry Graftstein. Otherwise there is not much else that can be done.

Posted in Islam, Israel, Jews, Middle-East, Racism, UN | 2 Comments »

Melanie Phillips views on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and Sharia Law

Posted by Atilla89 on February 17, 2008

I have found a very interesting post in which Melanie Phillips has given her views on the controversial statement made by Rowan Williams. The statement,

“I think at the moment there’s a great deal of confusion about this. A lot of what’s been written, whether it was about the Catholic church’s adoption agencies last year, sometimes what’s written about Jewish or Muslim communities, a lot of what’s written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody. Now that principle that there’s one law for everybody, is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy. But I think it’s a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties, which shape and dictate how they behave in society, and that the law needs to take some account of that. An approach to law which simply says there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, I think that’s a bit of a danger.

That’s why there’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

brings about several points that are of importance specifically for the UK and Europe. However I believe that contentious issues such as Sharia law, Islamism and religious extremism will become relevant for the rest of the world very soon. Now Williams has tried to backtrack by saying he did not mean having a parallel law system but I really don’t see how he could not mean that. Melanie elaborates:

He explicitly said that he wanted British Muslims to be able to have the choice between two jurisdictions, between the English Common Law, the English legal system in civil law, and sharia law. He then went on to say, and I was at his lecture, I heard him answer questions straight afterwards in which he said, ‘I didn’t say I wanted a parallel system’. Now I don’t know whether the man has a semantic understanding that passes our understanding, but in my view, a supplementary jurisdiction existing side by side with the majority legal structure, in which people are given the choice of one or the other, is in my book, parallel structures. So I think this is absolute nonsense.

The next point that Williams brings up is the issue of other religions having their own system of law, he drew on the example of ultra-orthodox Jews having separate halacha (Jewish Law) rulings. I would just like to point that these are on a voluntary basis and Jews must no matter what country they are in, follow the law of the land which takes precedence of Jewish law, except in a few situations (a stupid example would be a country introducing a law saying all Jews must walk naked down the street). Melanie further elaborates:

Let’s take the Jewish Rabbinical courts first. Yes, they do exist, and it’s true, as you say, that sharia courts already exist. But they both exist very much under the law. Jewish Rabbinical courts exist absolutely explicitly under the English law. Their dealings are informal, the arbitration of disputes is informal, it takes place on a voluntary basis. When Jews in Britain are married or divorced, they have to be married or divorced according to English law. Jews recognise explicitly there can only be one law of the land which binds them. So all their rabbinical religious dealings are informal. Now the sharia courts want something more than that. Muslims want something more than that, and what Archbishop Williams was saying is something more than that. What he was suggesting was that sharia law should move from being a completely informal system, to being one in which people can choose which system of justice they’re under. In other words, it has equal jurisdiction, a supplementary jurisdiction was the word he used, with the English law. That gives it equal status. That would mean I think that a polygamous marriage under sharia law would be recognised by the English State. Where he’s absolutely correct is that we have had what I would call Islamisation by stealth. We’ve had a situation now for several years, in which the British State has turned a blind eye to the practice of polygamy among British Muslims. Worse still, it is giving welfare benefits to the multiple wives of British Muslims, thus de facto recognising polygamy. We also have, increasingly, sharia compliant mortgages, sharia financing, and a lot of other things in which the majority culture of Britain is being steadily Islamised. That is very different from allowing a minority religious faith to practice its faith, to form communities of faith and culture, which a liberal democratic society should do, we should certainly give religious minorities the space to do that. But that is very different from a religious minority expecting the majority law and polity of the country in which it’s living to change to accommodate it.

You can read the whole article below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Islam, Islamism, Jews, Middle-East, Terrorism, UK | 3 Comments »