1. President [Ahmadinejad]: Resistance is only path to victory over occupiers
2. Peres: Iran threat should be resolved politically
---------------------------------------------------------------
President[Ahmadinejad]: Resistance is only path to victory over occupiers
TEHRAN (IRNA) [via Tehran Times] -- President Mahmud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that resistance is the only way to victory against occupiers and aggressors.
""There is no way but resistance and intellectual and political assault on the Zionist regime. This is the only way of victory,"" said President Ahmadinejad in a meeting with former Lebanese prime minister Omar Karami here on Tuesday.
President Ahmadinejad said that the Zionist regime was established to rule over the world of Islam and the regime had the mission of threatening, occupation, aggression, assassinating and undermining Muslim states. He said that resistance to the Zionist Regime and the bullying powers is a national and Islamic duty of all Muslims.
""Resistance against the Zionist regime is a big lesson taught to mankind by the late Imam Khomeini.""
He said that unity and resistance were the key to victory against the Zionist regime and by God's grace the era of Zionist regime and its supporters has come to an end and signs of their collapse are evident.
He noted that the Zionist regime has not the least base among nations in the region and the world.
""Today, even the U.S. and European governments have come to the conclusion that support for the (Zionist) regime is not to their country's benefit,"" he said.
Enemies are too weak to launch any propagation, said Ahmadinejad, adding that victory of the Lebanese people showed that the Zionist regime is weaker than it seems.
A preliminary unity of the Lebanese people forced Zionists to retreat and if the unity is formed in the region, the Zionists will collapse much sooner than expected, he said.
""Victory belongs to the faithful and we will be with you to the end,"" he declared. Karami said for his part, ""We believe as you do that the Zionist regime was formed in the region to fight Islam and implement the projects that will meet US interests and it is collapsing.""
He said stances of people in certain Arab countries differ with those of their systems.
""Muslim Arab people consider the Zionist regime as their enemy. Lebanon is the smallest Arab country in terms of area and population but through reliance on God and in light of power of faith and will they managed to inflict heaviest damage on the Zionist regime's army,"" he concluded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peres: Iran threat should be resolved politically
Peres says he does not support military strike on Iran, adds Tehran's nuclear threat should be addressed through political, economic moves
Ronen Medzini and AP Published: 09.05.08, Ynetnews.com
Saying 'no' to Iran strike? The Iranian nuclear threat should be resolved politically, rather than militarily, President Shimon Peres said Friday.
Peres, who is currently in Italy, told reporters that the Iran problem will not be resolved militarily, but rather, through political and economic moves. The president added that it is better to act politically or economically as long as such option exists.
"I do not support a military strike against Iran," Peres told a conference in Italy, while urging the world to join forces and impose severe economic sanctions on Tehran. He said Iran was no longer representing its distinguished history, but rather, radicalism and religious fanaticism.
Today, Tehran constitutes a real and existential threat for the entire Middle East and the whole world, Peres added, noting that the vast majority of Arab countries object to the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Attack on Israeli aircrew in Canada thwarted: report
Wed Sep 3, 2:30 pm ET
JERUSALEM (AFP) – Plans by an unknown group to attack staff of Israel's national carrier El Al in Canada have been thwarted, Israel's private Channel Two television reported on Wednesday.
Without giving the nationalities of the alleged attackers, it said they had monitored the comings and goings of El Al aircrew at a Toronto hotel.
Security procedures for crews overnighting at the hotel between flights have now been changed, it added.
On Tuesday, Israeli newspapers reported that at least five attempts by the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to abduct Israeli businessmen in Africa, Asia, and South America had been foiled.
Each time, Hezbollah -- which fought a bloody war against Israel in the summer of 2006 -- tried to use "sleeper cells" embedded in far-flung Shiite Muslim communities, the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot reported.
It and other newspapers cited unnamed Israeli security officials and said further details about the plots remain under official censorship.
Wed Sep 3, 2:30 pm ET
JERUSALEM (AFP) – Plans by an unknown group to attack staff of Israel's national carrier El Al in Canada have been thwarted, Israel's private Channel Two television reported on Wednesday.
Without giving the nationalities of the alleged attackers, it said they had monitored the comings and goings of El Al aircrew at a Toronto hotel.
Security procedures for crews overnighting at the hotel between flights have now been changed, it added.
On Tuesday, Israeli newspapers reported that at least five attempts by the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to abduct Israeli businessmen in Africa, Asia, and South America had been foiled.
Each time, Hezbollah -- which fought a bloody war against Israel in the summer of 2006 -- tried to use "sleeper cells" embedded in far-flung Shiite Muslim communities, the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot reported.
It and other newspapers cited unnamed Israeli security officials and said further details about the plots remain under official censorship.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Separating fact from fiction
By David A. Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
New York September 2, 2008
Recently, I met a gentleman at a dinner. He asked me what I do. I said I work for AJC. He replied that he had once been a member, but quit because we weren’t sufficiently “pro-peace.” When I pursued the point, he said that the decision to make peace was in Israel’s hands, but no one would make it, and groups like AJC were too busy “protecting” the Israeli government.
In a similar vein, the lead letter in the August 18th issue of the Jerusalem Report, written by Martin J. Weisman of California, stated: “I have to conclude that Israel may never have peace. The greatest obstacle to a two-state solution, and a source of great frustration for Israel’s friends, are the West Bank settlements mostly inhabited by religious Zionists.”
And in an exchange between British blogger Joy Wolfe and leaders of the “Free Gaza” campaign—which recently sent two boats to Gaza in the hope of garnering media attention—an Israeli-based member, Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, condemned Israel for “collective punishment of 1.5 million people,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity,” and described Gaza as “an open prison, a sort of concentration camp – most of those people perfectly innocent ordinary human beings who want to be at peace with us...” All this, she argued, “is about as far from Judaism as I can imagine.”
Of course, these comments are not unique. They reveal a certain mindset among those who profess friendship and concern for Israel, yet are incapable or unwilling, or both, to grasp two central points.
First, the vast majority of Israelis desperately yearn for peace and would support a deal tomorrow with the Palestinians (and Syrians), entailing major territorial concessions, if they believed such an accord were possible – and durable. When willing leaders stepped forward in Egypt and Jordan, for example, peace became not only possible, but inevitable. With the exception of a few zealots, perhaps, Israelis don’t need to be pushed, prodded, cajoled, or nudged to seek a peace settlement. Israel was established to create permanent security, not permanent conflict, for its residents.
Second, those who place the onus for peace entirely on Israel do a disservice to the truth, not to mention the quest for a settlement. By lifting responsibility from the shoulders of the Palestinians and their supporters, they reinforce the notion that it is the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who must change their behavior – or face condemnation.
Think about it. Israel faces an unprecedented security environment.
To the north, Hezbollah has strengthened its military and political position in Lebanon since the inconclusive 2006 war with Israel. Its arsenal now includes missiles that can reportedly reach two-thirds of Israel, whereas two years ago “only” the northern third was within reach.
Weeks ago, Lebanon took an official day off to welcome Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant terrorist released in the swap with Israel, whose greatest claim to fame was the murder of a four-year-old girl.
Syria was clandestinely moving toward a nuclear capability until Israel ended that dream one year ago this month. Despite indirect talks with Israel hosted by Turkey, Damascus continues to funnel weapons to Hezbollah, host terrorist groups whose aim is Israel’s destruction, cavort with Iran, and now flirt with a resurgent Russia. Syria is on a military shopping spree in Moscow and, like Venezuela, has offered to provide military bases for Russia.
Gaza, while less in the news these days, remains in the hands of Hamas, a group voted into power by “those perfectly innocent, ordinary human beings who want to be at peace with us,” in the words of Ms. Godfrey-Goldstein.
Let’s be clear.
When Israel left Gaza three years ago, its future was to be determined by the Palestinians, not the Israelis. Even so, it was in Israel’s interests, as a neighboring state, to see a peaceful, prosperous Gaza emerge, not a failed, dysfunctional incubator for radicalism. Yet that’s exactly what we have.
Does anyone doubt that Hamas is using this temporary lull to strengthen its combat capacity, along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Have the missile and mortar attacks on Sderot and Ashkelon been so quickly forgotten? Has Hamas’s charter, which denies Israel’s right to exist and doesn’t have many kind words for Jews generally, been altered? How can Israel, which has an obligation, like any nation, to ensure the safety of its citizens, simply ignore these unassailable facts about Gaza?
On the West Bank, yes, the Palestinian leadership is widely viewed as more moderate than Hamas. Peace talks are ongoing, though, despite American hopes, negotiators are seeking to dampen expectations of a final deal anytime soon.
From Israel’s perspective, the problems are many. The Palestinian Authority is weak. Its signals are mixed. Why, for example, did its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, praise Kuntar, the child murderer, on the day of his release and, more recently, meet him during a visit to Lebanon? And should the PA ever lose its grip on power to Hamas, as it did in Gaza, then what would be the implications for Israel, surrounded on three sides by Iranian-backed enemies who seek its annihilation?
And then there is the ever longer shadow of Iran itself. Can Tehran’s call for a world without Israel simply be dismissed as rhetorical excess? Iran’s growing military power, combined with its allies Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, poses an existential threat to Israel. To date, the efforts of the international community have not changed Iranian nuclear behavior.
Yet, despite these seemingly obvious threats to Israel and the road to peace, there are those who would ignore them and harp instead on what they believe to be the true obstacles – Israeli settlements, governmental hesitation, and military repression.
I’m not a fan of most settlements, but Israel has shown that, when it believes the price worth it, it will do what’s necessary with settlements that stand in the way, be they in Sinai, Gaza, or the northern West Bank.
Moreover, if anyone believes this Israel government is hesitant to make peace, then we’re living on different planets. It speaks openly of a two-state settlement, discusses the most sensitive issues with its Palestinian counterparts, and acknowledges the suffering that Palestinians have endured without a state of their own.
And while Israel doesn’t have easy choices in the Gaza cauldron, it has shown remarkable restraint in the face of endless provocation. I don’t know of many other nations that would have endured daily barrages without a robust military response.
Let me suggest that the real reasons for the absence of peace lie elsewhere.
First, too many in the Arab world have been fed a steady diet of Israel as an illegitimate nation. In this view, Israel has no right to exist. It is simply a colonial project of Western nations that must be eliminated. Few Arabs have ever visited Israel, met Israelis (or Jews), or studied the Israeli, and not just Arab, narrative of Israel’s history, including the Jewish people’s age-old link to the land.
To make matters worse, Israel has damaged the self-image and self-respect of the Arab world by refusing to be defeated in battle. How can it be that this tiny nation, deprived of any significant natural resources, has withstood the Arab onslaught for six decades and emerged not only as the strongest military power in the region, but also the most politically and economically advanced?
Second, as the annual Arab Human Development Report makes abundantly clear, the Arab world has fallen far behind the rest of the world in the key indices that determine success in the contemporary world.
With the exception of its abundant, if unevenly distributed, energy resources, the region has contributed little to the globalized world. Thus, with stagnant political, economic, and social institutions, frustration runs high, especially in the demographic bulge of young people who have bleak futures. Herein lies the fertile recruiting ground for radicalism and extremism. With clever manipulation, Israel becomes an easy target for the pent-up anger and search for culprits.
And third, too often the Palestinians have gotten a pass on the need to accept responsibility for their own actions. An entire web of validators, enablers, and advocates – from the United Nations to individual governments, from non-governmental groups to the chattering class – stands ready to justify, rationalize, or defend Palestinian actions, and to quickly turn the spotlight on every alleged Israeli misdeed. That’s not a formula for progress, but paralysis.
To be clear, I believe in a two-state settlement as the only possible political outcome with a chance of success. I travel regularly to Arab countries and seek to contribute to a climate of mutual respect, and reject those Jewish messianists who would prevent coexistence.
Still, call me what you will, but I cannot accept those who, in the name of alleged concern for Israel, would tarnish its good name and, however unintentionally, jeopardize its future.
--------------------
To comment on this blog, visit: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/
By David A. Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
New York September 2, 2008
Recently, I met a gentleman at a dinner. He asked me what I do. I said I work for AJC. He replied that he had once been a member, but quit because we weren’t sufficiently “pro-peace.” When I pursued the point, he said that the decision to make peace was in Israel’s hands, but no one would make it, and groups like AJC were too busy “protecting” the Israeli government.
In a similar vein, the lead letter in the August 18th issue of the Jerusalem Report, written by Martin J. Weisman of California, stated: “I have to conclude that Israel may never have peace. The greatest obstacle to a two-state solution, and a source of great frustration for Israel’s friends, are the West Bank settlements mostly inhabited by religious Zionists.”
And in an exchange between British blogger Joy Wolfe and leaders of the “Free Gaza” campaign—which recently sent two boats to Gaza in the hope of garnering media attention—an Israeli-based member, Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, condemned Israel for “collective punishment of 1.5 million people,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity,” and described Gaza as “an open prison, a sort of concentration camp – most of those people perfectly innocent ordinary human beings who want to be at peace with us...” All this, she argued, “is about as far from Judaism as I can imagine.”
Of course, these comments are not unique. They reveal a certain mindset among those who profess friendship and concern for Israel, yet are incapable or unwilling, or both, to grasp two central points.
First, the vast majority of Israelis desperately yearn for peace and would support a deal tomorrow with the Palestinians (and Syrians), entailing major territorial concessions, if they believed such an accord were possible – and durable. When willing leaders stepped forward in Egypt and Jordan, for example, peace became not only possible, but inevitable. With the exception of a few zealots, perhaps, Israelis don’t need to be pushed, prodded, cajoled, or nudged to seek a peace settlement. Israel was established to create permanent security, not permanent conflict, for its residents.
Second, those who place the onus for peace entirely on Israel do a disservice to the truth, not to mention the quest for a settlement. By lifting responsibility from the shoulders of the Palestinians and their supporters, they reinforce the notion that it is the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who must change their behavior – or face condemnation.
Think about it. Israel faces an unprecedented security environment.
To the north, Hezbollah has strengthened its military and political position in Lebanon since the inconclusive 2006 war with Israel. Its arsenal now includes missiles that can reportedly reach two-thirds of Israel, whereas two years ago “only” the northern third was within reach.
Weeks ago, Lebanon took an official day off to welcome Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant terrorist released in the swap with Israel, whose greatest claim to fame was the murder of a four-year-old girl.
Syria was clandestinely moving toward a nuclear capability until Israel ended that dream one year ago this month. Despite indirect talks with Israel hosted by Turkey, Damascus continues to funnel weapons to Hezbollah, host terrorist groups whose aim is Israel’s destruction, cavort with Iran, and now flirt with a resurgent Russia. Syria is on a military shopping spree in Moscow and, like Venezuela, has offered to provide military bases for Russia.
Gaza, while less in the news these days, remains in the hands of Hamas, a group voted into power by “those perfectly innocent, ordinary human beings who want to be at peace with us,” in the words of Ms. Godfrey-Goldstein.
Let’s be clear.
When Israel left Gaza three years ago, its future was to be determined by the Palestinians, not the Israelis. Even so, it was in Israel’s interests, as a neighboring state, to see a peaceful, prosperous Gaza emerge, not a failed, dysfunctional incubator for radicalism. Yet that’s exactly what we have.
Does anyone doubt that Hamas is using this temporary lull to strengthen its combat capacity, along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Have the missile and mortar attacks on Sderot and Ashkelon been so quickly forgotten? Has Hamas’s charter, which denies Israel’s right to exist and doesn’t have many kind words for Jews generally, been altered? How can Israel, which has an obligation, like any nation, to ensure the safety of its citizens, simply ignore these unassailable facts about Gaza?
On the West Bank, yes, the Palestinian leadership is widely viewed as more moderate than Hamas. Peace talks are ongoing, though, despite American hopes, negotiators are seeking to dampen expectations of a final deal anytime soon.
From Israel’s perspective, the problems are many. The Palestinian Authority is weak. Its signals are mixed. Why, for example, did its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, praise Kuntar, the child murderer, on the day of his release and, more recently, meet him during a visit to Lebanon? And should the PA ever lose its grip on power to Hamas, as it did in Gaza, then what would be the implications for Israel, surrounded on three sides by Iranian-backed enemies who seek its annihilation?
And then there is the ever longer shadow of Iran itself. Can Tehran’s call for a world without Israel simply be dismissed as rhetorical excess? Iran’s growing military power, combined with its allies Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, poses an existential threat to Israel. To date, the efforts of the international community have not changed Iranian nuclear behavior.
Yet, despite these seemingly obvious threats to Israel and the road to peace, there are those who would ignore them and harp instead on what they believe to be the true obstacles – Israeli settlements, governmental hesitation, and military repression.
I’m not a fan of most settlements, but Israel has shown that, when it believes the price worth it, it will do what’s necessary with settlements that stand in the way, be they in Sinai, Gaza, or the northern West Bank.
Moreover, if anyone believes this Israel government is hesitant to make peace, then we’re living on different planets. It speaks openly of a two-state settlement, discusses the most sensitive issues with its Palestinian counterparts, and acknowledges the suffering that Palestinians have endured without a state of their own.
And while Israel doesn’t have easy choices in the Gaza cauldron, it has shown remarkable restraint in the face of endless provocation. I don’t know of many other nations that would have endured daily barrages without a robust military response.
Let me suggest that the real reasons for the absence of peace lie elsewhere.
First, too many in the Arab world have been fed a steady diet of Israel as an illegitimate nation. In this view, Israel has no right to exist. It is simply a colonial project of Western nations that must be eliminated. Few Arabs have ever visited Israel, met Israelis (or Jews), or studied the Israeli, and not just Arab, narrative of Israel’s history, including the Jewish people’s age-old link to the land.
To make matters worse, Israel has damaged the self-image and self-respect of the Arab world by refusing to be defeated in battle. How can it be that this tiny nation, deprived of any significant natural resources, has withstood the Arab onslaught for six decades and emerged not only as the strongest military power in the region, but also the most politically and economically advanced?
Second, as the annual Arab Human Development Report makes abundantly clear, the Arab world has fallen far behind the rest of the world in the key indices that determine success in the contemporary world.
With the exception of its abundant, if unevenly distributed, energy resources, the region has contributed little to the globalized world. Thus, with stagnant political, economic, and social institutions, frustration runs high, especially in the demographic bulge of young people who have bleak futures. Herein lies the fertile recruiting ground for radicalism and extremism. With clever manipulation, Israel becomes an easy target for the pent-up anger and search for culprits.
And third, too often the Palestinians have gotten a pass on the need to accept responsibility for their own actions. An entire web of validators, enablers, and advocates – from the United Nations to individual governments, from non-governmental groups to the chattering class – stands ready to justify, rationalize, or defend Palestinian actions, and to quickly turn the spotlight on every alleged Israeli misdeed. That’s not a formula for progress, but paralysis.
To be clear, I believe in a two-state settlement as the only possible political outcome with a chance of success. I travel regularly to Arab countries and seek to contribute to a climate of mutual respect, and reject those Jewish messianists who would prevent coexistence.
Still, call me what you will, but I cannot accept those who, in the name of alleged concern for Israel, would tarnish its good name and, however unintentionally, jeopardize its future.
--------------------
To comment on this blog, visit: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Hamas: 'Jews lived peacefully among Muslims for centuries, can again, in accordance with Islamic values.'
To Muslims, the history of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule has been benign, and they characterize Jews as having lived peacefully in Arab and Muslim countries for centuries.
But this view of history doesn't square with what we know, historically, about what "toleration of minorities" -- the acceptance of dhimmi status -- in Arab lands meant. It meant that non-Muslims, (i.e., those who did not wish to convert to Islam) would have to show subservience to Muslims in many everyday respects. Only then would non-Muslims be permitted "to live in peace." Hence, the prospect of Jews living "in accordance with Islamic ethics, religious teachings, and historical values" in a prospective Hamastan isn't that thrilling. //Mark Finkelstein
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hamas: 'Jews lived peacefully in Arab countries'
If ever Hamas were to conquer Palestine it seems that what lies in store for their non-Muslim minorities is a dhimmi future, according to this interview with a top Hamas official on Islamonline.net.
By Bataween
DAMASCUS — When IslamOnline.net announced to its audience a scheduled exclusive interview with Dr. Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas leader, it received a flood of questions from its diverse global audience.
One question was put forward by a person who identified himself as an Israeli Jew who wanted to make up his mind about Hamas "independently of the local news sources."
He wanted to know the kind of state Hamas would establish if it ever rises to power in Palestine, and whether it would expel Jews if Israel was dismantled.
"[We will deal with Jews] in accordance with our ethics, religious teachings, and historical values," Abu Marzook, the deputy head of Hamas political bureau, told IOL. He highlighted how Jews lived peacefully for centuries in Muslim and Arab countries. [Without using the term dhimmi]
"Jews lived freely and ran prosperous businesses in Egypt and Baghdad, and the markets of Baghdad are evidences of what the Jews owned."
[comment by bataween: Colour me cynical, but whatever happened to those prosperous businesses and Jewish-owned markets, Abu Marzook? All appropriated by Arab governments without a penny in compensation to their Jewish owners.]
-------------
For information about dhimmitude see Bat Ye'or's article.
(This means: Sure, Jews can live in Hamastan -- asBelow, in answer to a question, a Hamas official states that under Hamas rule, Jews would live " in accordance with [Islamic] ethics, religious teachings, and historical values."
dhimmis, a subservient population.)
To Muslims, the history of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule has been benign, and they characterize Jews as having lived peacefully in Arab and Muslim countries for centuries.
But this view of history doesn't square with what we know, historically, about what "toleration of minorities" -- the acceptance of dhimmi status -- in Arab lands meant. It meant that non-Muslims, (i.e., those who did not wish to convert to Islam) would have to show subservience to Muslims in many everyday respects. Only then would non-Muslims be permitted "to live in peace." Hence, the prospect of Jews living "in accordance with Islamic ethics, religious teachings, and historical values" in a prospective Hamastan isn't that thrilling. //Mark Finkelstein
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hamas: 'Jews lived peacefully in Arab countries'
If ever Hamas were to conquer Palestine it seems that what lies in store for their non-Muslim minorities is a dhimmi future, according to this interview with a top Hamas official on Islamonline.net.
By Bataween
DAMASCUS — When IslamOnline.net announced to its audience a scheduled exclusive interview with Dr. Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas leader, it received a flood of questions from its diverse global audience.
One question was put forward by a person who identified himself as an Israeli Jew who wanted to make up his mind about Hamas "independently of the local news sources."
He wanted to know the kind of state Hamas would establish if it ever rises to power in Palestine, and whether it would expel Jews if Israel was dismantled.
"[We will deal with Jews] in accordance with our ethics, religious teachings, and historical values," Abu Marzook, the deputy head of Hamas political bureau, told IOL. He highlighted how Jews lived peacefully for centuries in Muslim and Arab countries. [Without using the term dhimmi]
"Jews lived freely and ran prosperous businesses in Egypt and Baghdad, and the markets of Baghdad are evidences of what the Jews owned."
[comment by bataween: Colour me cynical, but whatever happened to those prosperous businesses and Jewish-owned markets, Abu Marzook? All appropriated by Arab governments without a penny in compensation to their Jewish owners.]
-------------
For information about dhimmitude see Bat Ye'or's article.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
What do you suppose the outcome might be when you teach people that "Zionists develop diseases to sell drugs? " Time to wake up. --Mark
'Zionists develop diseases to sell drugs' From Tehran, PressTV*
Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:06:20 GMT
President Mahmoud AhmadinejadPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has blasted some 'Zionist drug cartels' that develop new diseases to sell their pharmaceutical products.
“Some multinational companies and Zionist cartels produce new kinds of diseases to export their drugs to other countries,” Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with Iranian pharmacists arragned to mark the Pharmacy Day.
“Contrary to the commercial approach that is prevalent in the world drug markets, our approach towards the production and export of drugs is humane,” Fars news agency quoted the president as saying. “We should try to produce drugs that are needed worldwide to help the humans,” he noted.
---------
* PressTV : Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.
'Zionists develop diseases to sell drugs' From Tehran, PressTV*
Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:06:20 GMT
President Mahmoud AhmadinejadPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has blasted some 'Zionist drug cartels' that develop new diseases to sell their pharmaceutical products.
“Some multinational companies and Zionist cartels produce new kinds of diseases to export their drugs to other countries,” Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with Iranian pharmacists arragned to mark the Pharmacy Day.
“Contrary to the commercial approach that is prevalent in the world drug markets, our approach towards the production and export of drugs is humane,” Fars news agency quoted the president as saying. “We should try to produce drugs that are needed worldwide to help the humans,” he noted.
---------
* PressTV : Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis. Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Barak to Rice: Israel will not accept nuclear Iran
Published:08.25.08, ynetnews.com
Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and told her that Israel is committed to the safety of its citizens while at the same time acting to improve the lives of the Palestinians in the West Bank.
Regarding Iran Barak said that the US must continue to impose sanctions on the country, as Israel would not accept a nuclear Iran and would remove no options from the table. (Roni Sofer)
---------------------------------------------
Obama: Act forcefully with Iran before Israel's back against wall
Published:
08.25.08, ynetnews.com
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called on the US and its allies to "act forcefully with Iran" and "address the nuclear issue before Israel feels its back is against the wall." (Reuters)
-----------------------
[McCain on Iran: From February 2008]
The excerpt below is from the transcript of Senator McCain's speech.
SEN. MCCAIN: I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the state of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
---------
No endorsement of either candidate is implied.
....
I intend to defeat the threat by staying on offense and by marshalling every relevant agency of our government and our allies in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
Published:08.25.08, ynetnews.com
Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and told her that Israel is committed to the safety of its citizens while at the same time acting to improve the lives of the Palestinians in the West Bank.
Regarding Iran Barak said that the US must continue to impose sanctions on the country, as Israel would not accept a nuclear Iran and would remove no options from the table. (Roni Sofer)
---------------------------------------------
Obama: Act forcefully with Iran before Israel's back against wall
Published:
08.25.08, ynetnews.com
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called on the US and its allies to "act forcefully with Iran" and "address the nuclear issue before Israel feels its back is against the wall." (Reuters)
-----------------------
[McCain on Iran: From February 2008]
The excerpt below is from the transcript of Senator McCain's speech.
SEN. MCCAIN: I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the state of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
---------
No endorsement of either candidate is implied.
....
I intend to defeat the threat by staying on offense and by marshalling every relevant agency of our government and our allies in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Morris on Bostom's Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism
Israeli historian Benny Morris reviews The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, along with another text.
The Darker Side by Benny Morris
The New Republic Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Scholars in the West have begun to devote time and space to anti-Western jihadism and Muslim anti-Semitism--and a good thing, too, as these are very much on the contemporary international and Middle Eastern political and military agendas and, I fear, will grow in significance during the coming decades, as the Huntingtonian "clash of civilizations" widens.
That such a "clash" is going on is all too apparent, from the riots in Nigerian streets, where hundreds died following the announcement of an impending beauty pageant on Nigerian soil, to the murder of an Italian priest in Turkey following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark.
Yet, Western liberals hesitate to tackle the subject of Muslim anti-Semitism, lest it seem anti-multicultural or provoke the hornet's nest of Allah's minions.
Even the use of the word "jihad" has become taboo among appeasers of Islam--and even among some non-appeasers, such as George W. Bush, who, like other Western leaders, refuses to call the phenomenon by its precise name (and the name that its own practitioners use). People speak of "international terrorism" when they should be speaking of "international Muslim (or Islamist) terrorism."
....
The story peddled by latter-day Arab propagandists (and reinforced by some Jewish scholars, who tended in decades past, sometimes for apologetic reasons of their own, to highlight the medieval "Golden Age" of Islamic Spanish Jewry)--that the Jewish minorities in the Muslim Arab countries before the advent of Zionism enjoyed a pleasant fraternal existence among the majority populations--has often been trotted out for the benefit of ignorant Westerners, to illustrate Muslim Arab tolerance of minorities and, politically, to promote plans for a multi-ethnic, one-state solution for Israel/ Palestine.
It also has taken hold among Western intellectuals. Thus as prominent a journalist as Lawrence Wright, in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, writes that "until the end of World War II, there was little precedent in Islam for the anti-Semitism that was now warping the politics and society of the region. Jews had lived safely--although submissively--under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom," until Christian missionaries, Nazi propaganda, and the rise of Israel twisted their minds and propelled them toward anti-Semitism. ....
But this construct, in Bostom's view (and in my own), is wholly false. It flies in the face of the evidence, much of it presented in Bostom's tome. Certainly modern Christian influences, nationalist enthrallment, and Jewish nationalism (and its success) have added layers to traditional Islamic anti-Semitism. But they were building on firm foundations.
From its inception, Islam and its adherents, beginning with Muhammad himself, saw Judaism (and Christianity) as rival parent religions that had to be fought and overcome for Islam to succeed. The initial struggles, in the early seventh century, were existential, a matter of survival, for the Muslims bent on dominating Hijaz and then breaking out of the dismal, arid, thinly populated confines of Arabia. The first Muslims shared a deep sense of vulnerability and threat.
And so the Jews (and Christians) in the realms of expanding Islam were subjected to a regime based on an understanding or agreement--the dhimma--of subordination, marginalization, and discrimination. By the twelfth century, the great philosopher Maimonides, a successful Jew in the Islamic world, the doctor to sultans, was to lament: "God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us.... None has matched [them] in debasing, humiliating, and hating us." And the situation was to remain more or less constant in most of the Islamic lands down to the twentieth century.
---
Bostom's book is important and deeply discouraging, but it suffers from flaws of organization and analysis. It is eclectic and chaotic; much is missing, even as there is too much repetition. In some ways the historical picture is even worse than he portrays it as being.
---- end ---
Bostom has issued a response to Morris' claim that "much is missing." See: article
The Darker Side by Benny Morris
The New Republic Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Scholars in the West have begun to devote time and space to anti-Western jihadism and Muslim anti-Semitism--and a good thing, too, as these are very much on the contemporary international and Middle Eastern political and military agendas and, I fear, will grow in significance during the coming decades, as the Huntingtonian "clash of civilizations" widens.
That such a "clash" is going on is all too apparent, from the riots in Nigerian streets, where hundreds died following the announcement of an impending beauty pageant on Nigerian soil, to the murder of an Italian priest in Turkey following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark.
Yet, Western liberals hesitate to tackle the subject of Muslim anti-Semitism, lest it seem anti-multicultural or provoke the hornet's nest of Allah's minions.
Even the use of the word "jihad" has become taboo among appeasers of Islam--and even among some non-appeasers, such as George W. Bush, who, like other Western leaders, refuses to call the phenomenon by its precise name (and the name that its own practitioners use). People speak of "international terrorism" when they should be speaking of "international Muslim (or Islamist) terrorism."
....
The story peddled by latter-day Arab propagandists (and reinforced by some Jewish scholars, who tended in decades past, sometimes for apologetic reasons of their own, to highlight the medieval "Golden Age" of Islamic Spanish Jewry)--that the Jewish minorities in the Muslim Arab countries before the advent of Zionism enjoyed a pleasant fraternal existence among the majority populations--has often been trotted out for the benefit of ignorant Westerners, to illustrate Muslim Arab tolerance of minorities and, politically, to promote plans for a multi-ethnic, one-state solution for Israel/ Palestine.
It also has taken hold among Western intellectuals. Thus as prominent a journalist as Lawrence Wright, in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, writes that "until the end of World War II, there was little precedent in Islam for the anti-Semitism that was now warping the politics and society of the region. Jews had lived safely--although submissively--under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom," until Christian missionaries, Nazi propaganda, and the rise of Israel twisted their minds and propelled them toward anti-Semitism. ....
But this construct, in Bostom's view (and in my own), is wholly false. It flies in the face of the evidence, much of it presented in Bostom's tome. Certainly modern Christian influences, nationalist enthrallment, and Jewish nationalism (and its success) have added layers to traditional Islamic anti-Semitism. But they were building on firm foundations.
From its inception, Islam and its adherents, beginning with Muhammad himself, saw Judaism (and Christianity) as rival parent religions that had to be fought and overcome for Islam to succeed. The initial struggles, in the early seventh century, were existential, a matter of survival, for the Muslims bent on dominating Hijaz and then breaking out of the dismal, arid, thinly populated confines of Arabia. The first Muslims shared a deep sense of vulnerability and threat.
And so the Jews (and Christians) in the realms of expanding Islam were subjected to a regime based on an understanding or agreement--the dhimma--of subordination, marginalization, and discrimination. By the twelfth century, the great philosopher Maimonides, a successful Jew in the Islamic world, the doctor to sultans, was to lament: "God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us.... None has matched [them] in debasing, humiliating, and hating us." And the situation was to remain more or less constant in most of the Islamic lands down to the twentieth century.
---
Bostom's book is important and deeply discouraging, but it suffers from flaws of organization and analysis. It is eclectic and chaotic; much is missing, even as there is too much repetition. In some ways the historical picture is even worse than he portrays it as being.
---- end ---
Bostom has issued a response to Morris' claim that "much is missing." See: article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)