INSTEAD OF CRYING, A REASON TO SING.
By Rabbi Binny Freedman
Published: Aish.com - Friday, August 22, 2008
"This is a story that I read in the Jerusalem Post a number of years ago. Now, understand, I am really a skeptic at heart when it comes to things like this, and I could not believe such a story was true, so I actually went to Mount Herzl and found the Shapiro grave. Seeing the headstone in the cemetery with the inscription matching the information in the newspaper account convinced me that the story is true. And because it is such a beautiful story, I will share it with you now:"
Chaim Shapiro went through the seven levels of hell. He survived four concentration camps not to mention the ghetto and forced marches. He began the War with eight children and a wonderful wife, and in a little over a year, he lost his wife and seven of his children, without ever having the chance to even sit shiva.
He was finally liberated from Buchenwald with his only surviving son Baruch and they wallowed in the DP camps for nearly three years until finally, in 1948, they found place aboard an immigrant ship and arrived in Israel a week later.
Israel, in the midst of the War of Independence, was fighting a desperate battle for survival against overwhelming odds, so Baruch Shapiro volunteered to fight.
With no previous training, he was taken to a ravine, handed a rifle, taught how to shoot a few bullets, and sent off to war.
Meanwhile, with the stipend that he received from the Jewish Agency, his father Chaim rented a small apartment outside Tel Aviv.
Baruch Shapiro distinguished himself in battle. As part of the Harel Brigade fighting under Yitzhak Rabin to break the Arab siege on Jerusalem, Baruch received a field commission as an officer and was awarded a medal for bravery under fire.
And then, one day, as Chaim Shapiro was sitting in his tiny living room in Tel Aviv, he glanced out the window and saw one of those terrible delegations heading up the path to his apartment.
They say that Chaim Shapiro opened the door before they knocked, and they say that he never even read the telegram, just crumpled it over and over in his hands....
When a soldier in Israel is killed, the army takes care of everything, including the funeral arrangements. Chaim Shapiro had only one request: he wanted his son who had died fighting for Jerusalem to at least be buried in Jerusalem, on Mount Herzl, the National Military cemetery.
The next afternoon hundreds of mourners gathered at Mount Herzl. Most of them had never known Baruch Shapiro or his father Chaim, but they had heard of the terrible tragedy and wanted to pay their respects. After all, what Hitler had not finished in the crematoria had ended at the hands of an Arab bullet; this was the last Shapiro son; the end of a line.
Yigal Yadin himself, the IDF Chief of Staff (who would later discover Massada) stood by Chaim Shapiro's side.
And as the coffin was being lowered into the ground, Chaim Shapiro began to sing.
People thought he had lost it; Yadin put his arm around Chaim's shoulders and someone ran to get him some water. But he shrugged them all off, and again, began to sing. People had no idea what to make of it, so finally Chaim Shapiro looked at them and said: "You know, I have been through a hell the likes of which most people cannot imagine; I lost over seventy relatives in a little over a year, including seven children, my wife and parents. I have no place to mourn them, no grave; they are ashes in the skies over Europe, and I have no idea why they had to die.
"But this son, at least this son, I know why he died. He died so we could have a home for the Jewish people in the land of Israel, and he has a grave, here on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem. And that is not a reason to cry, it is a reason to sing."
When Chaim Shapiro finished speaking, he began to sing once more, and grabbing people's hands, to dance.
And as the flag-draped coffin of Baruch Shapiro was lowered into the ground, three hundred mourners began to sing and to dance against the setting sun of the Jerusalem sky...
The next time you visit Israel, go to Mount Herzl, Israel's National Military Cemetery, her Arlington. And when you walk through the wide stone gates, walk up and then down to the right where the graves from 1948 lie, and you will find the lonely grave of one Baruch Shapiro. Close your eyes there, and you will understand perhaps, why the Jewish people will never be destroyed.
Am Yisrael Chai.
Excerpted from "Small Miracles of the Holocaust: Extraordinary Coincidences of Faith, Hope and Survival" by Yitta Halberstam and Judith Leventhal, Globe Pequot Press.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
RIGHTS GROUP: HAMAS MUST END "CRUEL AND INHUMAN" TREATMENT OF CAPTIVE ISRAELI SOLDIER
Jersusalem (Associated Press, 06/24/10) - Human Rights Watch charged Friday that Hamas is violating the rules of war by prohibiting a captive Israeli soldier, Sgt. Gilad Schalit, from having contact with his family and the Red Cross.
The treatment of the 23-year-old soldier, is "cruel and inhuman" and matches a U.N. definition of torture because he is denied any outside contact, the U.S.-based rights group said in a statement. Hamas has been holding him since 2006 in Gaza.
Negotiations over a deal that would see Israel win Schalit's release by freeing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including militants convicted of deadly attacks agains civilians, have stalled.
Hamas released a video of Schalit in October 2009 to prove the soldier was alive. His current condition is unknown.
The treatment of the 23-year-old soldier, is "cruel and inhuman" and matches a U.N. definition of torture because he is denied any outside contact, the U.S.-based rights group said in a statement. Hamas has been holding him since 2006 in Gaza.
Negotiations over a deal that would see Israel win Schalit's release by freeing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including militants convicted of deadly attacks agains civilians, have stalled.
Hamas released a video of Schalit in October 2009 to prove the soldier was alive. His current condition is unknown.
If Israel goes down, we all go down
Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region.
By José María Aznar
By José María Aznar
For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship.
In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.
Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.
Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.
Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.
For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.
The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.
The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.
Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.
The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.
This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.
It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.
What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.
Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.
The article was published in the British newspaper 'The Times' on 17 June 2010.
José María Aznar was prime minister of Spain between 1996 and 2004.
Friday, June 25, 2010
An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama
Dear President Obama:
You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.
You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.
You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.
With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight
Originally published in the Washington Times
You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.
You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.
You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.
With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight
Originally published in the Washington Times
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Comment Moderation
Comments to posts with more than 14 days need to be accepted before being published.
The translated e-mail from the brazilian soldier of IDF
"I send a friend's deposition that is serving the Army and that was in the episode Flotilla.
The deposition was sent to other friend and he has permission of being reviewed, and it
is worthwhile to read, to publish, to explain.
Paz, hugs, Ania
"I received the friend's e-mail Ana Luiza Tapia, a person candy that made aliá there are about 2,5 years
and now it is serving in the army, in the medical area. She counts with their words a little than he/she
happened for there, and with his/her explicit permission to the end of this e-mail, it allowed to pass him
/it ahead. Ana is a sweet person, dedicated to the friends,
serious in his/her work, convinced Zionist and that she does what is able to help who is - and I am proof
of that.-----------------------------------------------------------------
First I want to thank everyone for all of the concerned e-mails. I am well, great. I apologize for not writing more
frequently, but in the army it is like this. We don't have time for anything.
I know that all are already tired to hear about what happened in Gaza this week, but as I heard
a lot of foolishness about this,I decided to tell you my version of the story. I don't want them to
think that some peaceful activists or something of the sort were aboard that ship. I continue to be the same truthful
person as ever.
But since I was part of that episode, I cannot abstain from speaking the truth and the facts.
I WAS THERE! NOBODY TOLD ME. I DIDN'T READ IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. I DIDN'T SEE PICTURES ON THE INTERNET OR
VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE. I LIVED EVERYTHING AS IT REALLY WAS, LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR.
As you all know, I am serving with doctors in emergency medicine in the Israeli Defense Force
trauma department. That means: medicine in the field.
4:30h in the morning Monday: my army telephone begins to ring.
Possible conflict in Gaza? Request for help of the medical department, to guarantee that there wouldn't be a lack of
doctors.
My order: to get ready quickly and to bring supplies; the helicopter will come for me on the base.
En route, they explain to me the situation. There is a UN ship trying to break the blockade of Gaza.
I read all of the registrations supplied by army intelligence (even to understand the size of
the situation).
The ship approached the coast on the way to Gaza. The agreement between Israel and the UN is that ALL
of the boats should be inspected in the port of Ashdod in Israel and all of the supplies should
be transported by OUR army to Gaza. That is because STILL TODAY, about 14 missiles from Gaza are being fired
daily against Israel. And we cannot allow more armament and material for
the construction of bombs to be sent to Hamas,the terrorist group that controls Gaza. In this way,
we are avoiding a new war. At least for the time being.
- The ship refused to stop. They said that they would only deliver the load IN Gaza.
- Because of this, before a ship with 95% innocent if misguided civilians on board, (the other ones 5% are activists of groups
terrorist allies to Hamas, that schemed that whole confusion) Israel decided to offer
to the commanders of the ship that it be stopped for inspection on the high seas. We would order soldiers
to inspect the ship and if there were no armaments, they could proceed to Gaza. THAT WAS
AN ATTITUDE EXTREMELY PACIFIST OF OUR ARMY, WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVILIANS THAT WERE ON THE SHIP.
AND, IF THERE WERE NO ARMAMENTS ON THE SHIP, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT IT BE INSPECTED?
5:00h - My arrival in Gaza. Exactly when the soldiers were entering the boats. AND THEY WERE
ATTACKED GRATUITOUSLY: they had their weapons stolen, they were beaten and stabbed. More soldiers
were sent, this time to control the conflict. About 50 people were wrapped up in the conflict,
-9 died. Those that died were they who tried to kill our soldiers, not civil UN pacifists,
but terrorist militants that commanded the group. All the others - 22 wounded among the crew members
of the ship, they were ASSISTED AND RESCUED BY US, ME AND MY TEAM ARE SENT TO THE BEST HOSPITALS IN
ISRAEL.
- Among us, 9 wounded. Shots, stabs and beating. One of them is still in a critical state after
a concussion and 6 shots in the trunk. Boys between 18 and 22 years, that had orders to inspect a UN ship
and NOT to hurt anybody. And they didn't. Israel didn't shoot either the first, nor the
second shot. We were punished by trusting the pacifist attitudes of the UN. If we knew the
intention of the group, we would never have our youths practically disarmed going aboard
the ship. They would have been attacked by the sea. Otherwise all those that
still lift their voices against Israel would be on the bottom of the sea.
- After assisting our soldiers, I joined the other part of our team that was already taking
care of the crew members. Even with bracelets saying DOCTOR in four languages (English, Turkish,
Arabic and Hebrew) and stethoscopes around the neck, they still tried to attack US. One of
them spit in the face of our surgeon. And another gave a punch to the nurse that tried to medicate him.
BESIDES AGGRESSORS, THEY ARE ALSO INGRATES.
- I worked for the six following hours assisting only crew members of the ship.
The whole medical supply and help were offered by Israel.
- After the end of the confusion the ship was inspected finally.
IT WAS FULL OF COLD STEEL. IT WAS MATERIAL FOR THE MAKING OF HOME-MADE BOMBS.
WHERE IS THAT PACIFISM OF THE UN???
- On Tuesday, I went to visit not only our soldiers, but also the wounded of the ship. That
is the politics that Israel tries to maintain: we didn't kill civilians as the Arab terrorists.
do. We didn't refuse to send help to Gaza. We don't want more war. BUT WE WILL NEVER ALLOW THAT
THEY KILL OUR SOLDIERS.
Only stupid millionaires that find it beautiful to be a missionary of the UN do not understand that
war is not a place for civilians to put themselves. There was a baby on the boat (that was left
unhurt, obviously): how can anybody explain a mother who puts a baby in a ship on the way to a
war zone? Where do they want to arrive with him or her? THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE USED
AS TOOLS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND THAT THE INTENTION NEVER WAS TO SEND HELP TO THE GAZANS AND YES TO
GENERATE CONTROVERSY AND TO CREATE STILL MORE INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION. AND THEY CONTINUE
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT TO GIVE FORCE TO THE TERRORISM OF HAMAS, OF HEZBOLLAH OR OF IRAN ONLY
MEANS MORE DANGER. NOT ONLY TO ISRAEL, BUT TO THE WHOLE WORLD.
.Don't understand me badly. I don't think all the Arabs are terrorists.
BUT I KNOW THAT WHO CONTROLS THEM TODAY ARE TERRORISTS. And that this war is not only
against Israel.
Militant Islam nails the EXTERMINATION of everyone not Arabic. We are only the
first on the blacklist.
Please direct this e-mail to they that still don't understand that war is war and that
the terrorists are not victims.
A kiss to all
Shabat Shalom
Ana"
Again, my personal thanks to Mordechai100, Kitty and Speedy for sharing this e-mail and also the translation to english.
The deposition was sent to other friend and he has permission of being reviewed, and it
is worthwhile to read, to publish, to explain.
Paz, hugs, Ania
"I received the friend's e-mail Ana Luiza Tapia, a person candy that made aliá there are about 2,5 years
and now it is serving in the army, in the medical area. She counts with their words a little than he/she
happened for there, and with his/her explicit permission to the end of this e-mail, it allowed to pass him
/it ahead. Ana is a sweet person, dedicated to the friends,
serious in his/her work, convinced Zionist and that she does what is able to help who is - and I am proof
of that.-----------------------------------------------------------------
First I want to thank everyone for all of the concerned e-mails. I am well, great. I apologize for not writing more
frequently, but in the army it is like this. We don't have time for anything.
I know that all are already tired to hear about what happened in Gaza this week, but as I heard
a lot of foolishness about this,I decided to tell you my version of the story. I don't want them to
think that some peaceful activists or something of the sort were aboard that ship. I continue to be the same truthful
person as ever.
But since I was part of that episode, I cannot abstain from speaking the truth and the facts.
I WAS THERE! NOBODY TOLD ME. I DIDN'T READ IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. I DIDN'T SEE PICTURES ON THE INTERNET OR
VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE. I LIVED EVERYTHING AS IT REALLY WAS, LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR.
As you all know, I am serving with doctors in emergency medicine in the Israeli Defense Force
trauma department. That means: medicine in the field.
4:30h in the morning Monday: my army telephone begins to ring.
Possible conflict in Gaza? Request for help of the medical department, to guarantee that there wouldn't be a lack of
doctors.
My order: to get ready quickly and to bring supplies; the helicopter will come for me on the base.
En route, they explain to me the situation. There is a UN ship trying to break the blockade of Gaza.
I read all of the registrations supplied by army intelligence (even to understand the size of
the situation).
The ship approached the coast on the way to Gaza. The agreement between Israel and the UN is that ALL
of the boats should be inspected in the port of Ashdod in Israel and all of the supplies should
be transported by OUR army to Gaza. That is because STILL TODAY, about 14 missiles from Gaza are being fired
daily against Israel. And we cannot allow more armament and material for
the construction of bombs to be sent to Hamas,the terrorist group that controls Gaza. In this way,
we are avoiding a new war. At least for the time being.
- The ship refused to stop. They said that they would only deliver the load IN Gaza.
- Because of this, before a ship with 95% innocent if misguided civilians on board, (the other ones 5% are activists of groups
terrorist allies to Hamas, that schemed that whole confusion) Israel decided to offer
to the commanders of the ship that it be stopped for inspection on the high seas. We would order soldiers
to inspect the ship and if there were no armaments, they could proceed to Gaza. THAT WAS
AN ATTITUDE EXTREMELY PACIFIST OF OUR ARMY, WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVILIANS THAT WERE ON THE SHIP.
AND, IF THERE WERE NO ARMAMENTS ON THE SHIP, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT IT BE INSPECTED?
5:00h - My arrival in Gaza. Exactly when the soldiers were entering the boats. AND THEY WERE
ATTACKED GRATUITOUSLY: they had their weapons stolen, they were beaten and stabbed. More soldiers
were sent, this time to control the conflict. About 50 people were wrapped up in the conflict,
-9 died. Those that died were they who tried to kill our soldiers, not civil UN pacifists,
but terrorist militants that commanded the group. All the others - 22 wounded among the crew members
of the ship, they were ASSISTED AND RESCUED BY US, ME AND MY TEAM ARE SENT TO THE BEST HOSPITALS IN
ISRAEL.
- Among us, 9 wounded. Shots, stabs and beating. One of them is still in a critical state after
a concussion and 6 shots in the trunk. Boys between 18 and 22 years, that had orders to inspect a UN ship
and NOT to hurt anybody. And they didn't. Israel didn't shoot either the first, nor the
second shot. We were punished by trusting the pacifist attitudes of the UN. If we knew the
intention of the group, we would never have our youths practically disarmed going aboard
the ship. They would have been attacked by the sea. Otherwise all those that
still lift their voices against Israel would be on the bottom of the sea.
- After assisting our soldiers, I joined the other part of our team that was already taking
care of the crew members. Even with bracelets saying DOCTOR in four languages (English, Turkish,
Arabic and Hebrew) and stethoscopes around the neck, they still tried to attack US. One of
them spit in the face of our surgeon. And another gave a punch to the nurse that tried to medicate him.
BESIDES AGGRESSORS, THEY ARE ALSO INGRATES.
- I worked for the six following hours assisting only crew members of the ship.
The whole medical supply and help were offered by Israel.
- After the end of the confusion the ship was inspected finally.
IT WAS FULL OF COLD STEEL. IT WAS MATERIAL FOR THE MAKING OF HOME-MADE BOMBS.
WHERE IS THAT PACIFISM OF THE UN???
- On Tuesday, I went to visit not only our soldiers, but also the wounded of the ship. That
is the politics that Israel tries to maintain: we didn't kill civilians as the Arab terrorists.
do. We didn't refuse to send help to Gaza. We don't want more war. BUT WE WILL NEVER ALLOW THAT
THEY KILL OUR SOLDIERS.
Only stupid millionaires that find it beautiful to be a missionary of the UN do not understand that
war is not a place for civilians to put themselves. There was a baby on the boat (that was left
unhurt, obviously): how can anybody explain a mother who puts a baby in a ship on the way to a
war zone? Where do they want to arrive with him or her? THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE USED
AS TOOLS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND THAT THE INTENTION NEVER WAS TO SEND HELP TO THE GAZANS AND YES TO
GENERATE CONTROVERSY AND TO CREATE STILL MORE INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION. AND THEY CONTINUE
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT TO GIVE FORCE TO THE TERRORISM OF HAMAS, OF HEZBOLLAH OR OF IRAN ONLY
MEANS MORE DANGER. NOT ONLY TO ISRAEL, BUT TO THE WHOLE WORLD.
.Don't understand me badly. I don't think all the Arabs are terrorists.
BUT I KNOW THAT WHO CONTROLS THEM TODAY ARE TERRORISTS. And that this war is not only
against Israel.
Militant Islam nails the EXTERMINATION of everyone not Arabic. We are only the
first on the blacklist.
Please direct this e-mail to they that still don't understand that war is war and that
the terrorists are not victims.
A kiss to all
Shabat Shalom
Ana"
Again, my personal thanks to Mordechai100, Kitty and Speedy for sharing this e-mail and also the translation to english.
Monday, June 21, 2010
So much as happened in the past couple of weeks, and as much as it is a lot to absorb, this is a time where people need to get educated and be aware of what is going on in the world.
I met Walid Shoebat a week ago, and spoke with him personally. Walid was born and raised in Bethlehem , Israel, from an Arab father and an American mother. Raised as a Muslim, Walid grew up to become a terrorist working for the PLO.
Walid married a Christian woman, and later renounced Islam, after questioning his faith and his hatred of the Jewish people. Walid eventually became a Christian and has been a crusader exposing the cult of Islam ever since. Walid spoke of current events and brought up the subject of Turkey and had a lot to say about the Turks. Turkey has also been on my mind for quite a while now, and as I spoke to Walid about my concerns, and shared my points with him, he agreed on everything I had to say.
Take the Mavi Marmara, the Gaza flotilla ship for example. this whole operation was just another excuse to attack the IDF soldiers, and a distraction for the world from the real issues.
It was amazing to see the world accuse Israel of "attacking humanitarian activists", when it was so clear for the eye to see the Turks beating the IDF soldiers...Yet, the world was seeing something completely different!
The so called "peace activists" wanted to die! They were chanting the martyr's song prior to their departure. Why? Because Muslims believe that when a martyr dies, he or she will go straight to Allah's paradise, to a better life, then will become an intercessor for 70 members of their family!
This was a great way to deceive the world, by making Israel look bad to the world and to the UN. Best of all, it took the attention away from the fact that Turkey just made an alliance with Iran, while supporting their nuclear program.
Turkey has become a very powerful country, both politically and militarily speaking. Turkey, once a secular country, has fallen into the hands of Islamists, which plunged the country into regression, after President Ahmet Necdec Sezer left, ending his seven year term on May 16, 2007. 2007 is also the year Hamas took over Gaza...
Abdullah Gul, a former student of Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen, was then elected President of Turkey.
Russia also made an alliance with Iran and both Turkey and Russia are arming Iran to the teeth as we speak! Turkey is the country to watch closely, as it emerged rather suddenly and has now the power to annihilate all of the European armies!
Now, let's take a look at Fethullah Gulen, a so called Islamic scolar from Turkey, who has been praised for his "peace" talks by the Clintons, and many others, like Bill Gates, who shed $10,500,000 toward his Islamic schools in the US, a total of 85 schools, all paid for by the taxpayers. This so called peace activist had to leave Turkey because of his extreme ideas for the Islamation of the world, and his desire to re-establish the Ottoman Empire as well as a universal Caliphate! He also dreams of bringing Shariah Law to the US. While Turkey didn't want him, the US not only accepted him but welcomed him with open arms! Fethullah Gulen now resides in the US, where he built a Fortress, training future Jihadists, in Pennsylvania.
Homeland Security tried to deport him, but couldn't. His visa once rejected was eventually approved. The CIA is backing his movement. Why?
Not to mention that Dalia Mogahed, appointed by Barack Obama, and the first Muslim woman to be a member of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, has also praised Fethullah Gulen's movement who in her opinion, is a model and inspiration for all those working for the good of the society.
Dalia Mgahed commented on a couple topics, including the US approach to Muslims worldwide, during the Obama administration, the state democracy and religious freedom in the Muslim world, as well as the contributions of the Gulen movement to global peace and understanding.
Are we talking about two different people? This guy was thrown out of Turkey for his extreme ideas, before 2007!!! He wants the Islamization of the world, global Shariah Law, and the Ottoman Empire back, as well as a universal Caliphate!!! Yet, he is regarded as the prince of peace! I see him as a dangerous terrorist.
Meanwhile, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf got the approval from the New York board to build his mosque at Ground Zero. He too professes global peace, while desiring the Islamization of the world! His idea to build a mosque has nothing to do with peace and prayers, but will be a great way to introduce Shariah Law to New York and the US, through his mosque. meanwhile, building a mosque at Ground Zero, is not only a slap in the face of the victims of 9/11, but to all the American people as well!
Have the leaders in the US gone mad? Don't they see what happened in Europe? Europeans are sick of Islam, and are rebelling! Are people this blind to still believe Islam is a religion of peace?
This concludes my point. We see something terrible is about to happen, while our leaders are leading us to destruction! Muslims are using an old practice called taqiyya. Taqiyya means deception, lying to the infidels by any means, in order to hide their Faith under threat or persecution. Lying by using taqiyya is permissible in the Qu'ran to conceal a Muslim's true identity, and to mislead the enemy in the true nature, goals and strength of Islam.
Food for thought: When Turks and Muslims in general want to Islamize the world and bring their Shariah Law to Western countries, when Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map, they are not kidding.
I met Walid Shoebat a week ago, and spoke with him personally. Walid was born and raised in Bethlehem , Israel, from an Arab father and an American mother. Raised as a Muslim, Walid grew up to become a terrorist working for the PLO.
Walid married a Christian woman, and later renounced Islam, after questioning his faith and his hatred of the Jewish people. Walid eventually became a Christian and has been a crusader exposing the cult of Islam ever since. Walid spoke of current events and brought up the subject of Turkey and had a lot to say about the Turks. Turkey has also been on my mind for quite a while now, and as I spoke to Walid about my concerns, and shared my points with him, he agreed on everything I had to say.
Take the Mavi Marmara, the Gaza flotilla ship for example. this whole operation was just another excuse to attack the IDF soldiers, and a distraction for the world from the real issues.
It was amazing to see the world accuse Israel of "attacking humanitarian activists", when it was so clear for the eye to see the Turks beating the IDF soldiers...Yet, the world was seeing something completely different!
The so called "peace activists" wanted to die! They were chanting the martyr's song prior to their departure. Why? Because Muslims believe that when a martyr dies, he or she will go straight to Allah's paradise, to a better life, then will become an intercessor for 70 members of their family!
This was a great way to deceive the world, by making Israel look bad to the world and to the UN. Best of all, it took the attention away from the fact that Turkey just made an alliance with Iran, while supporting their nuclear program.
Turkey has become a very powerful country, both politically and militarily speaking. Turkey, once a secular country, has fallen into the hands of Islamists, which plunged the country into regression, after President Ahmet Necdec Sezer left, ending his seven year term on May 16, 2007. 2007 is also the year Hamas took over Gaza...
Abdullah Gul, a former student of Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen, was then elected President of Turkey.
Russia also made an alliance with Iran and both Turkey and Russia are arming Iran to the teeth as we speak! Turkey is the country to watch closely, as it emerged rather suddenly and has now the power to annihilate all of the European armies!
Now, let's take a look at Fethullah Gulen, a so called Islamic scolar from Turkey, who has been praised for his "peace" talks by the Clintons, and many others, like Bill Gates, who shed $10,500,000 toward his Islamic schools in the US, a total of 85 schools, all paid for by the taxpayers. This so called peace activist had to leave Turkey because of his extreme ideas for the Islamation of the world, and his desire to re-establish the Ottoman Empire as well as a universal Caliphate! He also dreams of bringing Shariah Law to the US. While Turkey didn't want him, the US not only accepted him but welcomed him with open arms! Fethullah Gulen now resides in the US, where he built a Fortress, training future Jihadists, in Pennsylvania.
Homeland Security tried to deport him, but couldn't. His visa once rejected was eventually approved. The CIA is backing his movement. Why?
Not to mention that Dalia Mogahed, appointed by Barack Obama, and the first Muslim woman to be a member of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, has also praised Fethullah Gulen's movement who in her opinion, is a model and inspiration for all those working for the good of the society.
Dalia Mgahed commented on a couple topics, including the US approach to Muslims worldwide, during the Obama administration, the state democracy and religious freedom in the Muslim world, as well as the contributions of the Gulen movement to global peace and understanding.
Are we talking about two different people? This guy was thrown out of Turkey for his extreme ideas, before 2007!!! He wants the Islamization of the world, global Shariah Law, and the Ottoman Empire back, as well as a universal Caliphate!!! Yet, he is regarded as the prince of peace! I see him as a dangerous terrorist.
Meanwhile, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf got the approval from the New York board to build his mosque at Ground Zero. He too professes global peace, while desiring the Islamization of the world! His idea to build a mosque has nothing to do with peace and prayers, but will be a great way to introduce Shariah Law to New York and the US, through his mosque. meanwhile, building a mosque at Ground Zero, is not only a slap in the face of the victims of 9/11, but to all the American people as well!
Have the leaders in the US gone mad? Don't they see what happened in Europe? Europeans are sick of Islam, and are rebelling! Are people this blind to still believe Islam is a religion of peace?
This concludes my point. We see something terrible is about to happen, while our leaders are leading us to destruction! Muslims are using an old practice called taqiyya. Taqiyya means deception, lying to the infidels by any means, in order to hide their Faith under threat or persecution. Lying by using taqiyya is permissible in the Qu'ran to conceal a Muslim's true identity, and to mislead the enemy in the true nature, goals and strength of Islam.
Food for thought: When Turks and Muslims in general want to Islamize the world and bring their Shariah Law to Western countries, when Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map, they are not kidding.
e-mail from a Brazilian solidier in IDF who tool part in the conflict
This come from a brazilian friend mordechai100.
He send me this e-mail in portuguese ( i will try to post a translated version ASAP).
Hi my friends,
I don't know who understands Portuguese or not. And since this is my Beazilian channel, I'm sendinh to all of you an e-mail from a Brazilian girl, soldier in IDF, who was with the troop that bordered the Turkish ship.
She tells, not what she read or heard but what she lived.
"envio depoimento de uma amiga que está servindo o Exército e que esteve no
episódio Flotilha. O depoimento foi enviado a outro amigo e tem permissão de
ser repassado, e vale a pena ler, divulgar, esclarecer.
Paz,
abraços,
Ania
"recebi o e-mail da amiga Ana Luiza Tapia, um doce de pessoa que fez aliá há
cerca de 2,5 anos e atualmente está servindo no exército, na área médica. Ela
conta com suas palavras um pouco do que se passou por lá, e com sua permissão
explícita ao fim deste e-mail, permitiu passá-lo adiante. A Ana é uma pessoa
doce, dedicada aos amigos, séria em seu trabalho, sionista convicta e que faz
o que pode para ajudar quem seja - e sou prova disso.
Que tenhamos todos um shabat shalom,
Uri Lam"
"Oi a todos!!
Primeiro quero agradecer a todos os e-mails preocupados. Eu estou bem,
ótima. Eu peço desculpas por não escrever mais frequentemente, mas no
exército é assim. Não temos tempo para nada.
Sei que todos já estão cansados de ouvir falar do que aconteceu em Gaza
nesta semana, mas como ouvi muitas asneiras por aí, resolvi contar a
vocês a minha versão da história. Eu não quero que pensem que virei
alguma ativista ou algo do gênero. Eu continuo a mesma Ana de sempre.
Mas por ter feito parte desse episódio, não posso me abster de falar a
verdade dos fatos.
EU ESTAVA LÁ! NINGUÉM ME CONTOU. NÃO LI NO JORNAL. NÃO VI FOTOS NA
INTERNET OU VÍDEOS NO YOUTUBE. VI TUDO COMO FOI MESMO, AO VIVO E COM
MUITAS CORES.
Como vocês sabem, eu estou servindo com médica na medicina de
emergência do exército de Israel, departamento de trauma. Isso
significa: medicina em campo.
4:30h da manhã de segunda-feira: meu telefone do exército começa a tocar.
Possíveis conflito em Gaza? Pedido de ajuda da força médica, garantir que
não faltarão médicos. Minha ordem: aprontar-me rapidamente e pegar
suprimentos, o helicóptero virá me buscar na base.
No caminho, me explicam a situação. Há um navio da ONU tentando furar a
barreira em Gaza. Li todos os registros fornecidos pela inteligência do
exército (até para entender o tamanho da situação).
- O navio se aproximou da costa a caminho de Gaza. O acordo entre
Israel e a ONU é que TODOS os barcos devem ser inspecionados no porto
de Ashdod em Israel e todos os suprimentos devem ser transportados pelo
NOSSO exército a Gaza. Isso porque AINDA HOJE, cerca de 14 mísseis tem
sido lançados de Gaza contra Israel diariamente. E não podemos permitir
que mais armamento e material para construção de bombas seja enviado ao
Hamas, grupo terrorista que controla gaza. Dessa forma, evitamos uma
nova guerra. Ao menos por agora.
- O navio se recusou a parar. Disseram que eles mesmo entregariam a carga a
Gaza.
- Assim, diante de um navio com 95% de civis inocentes (os outros 5% são
ativistas de grupos terroristas aliados ao Hamas, que tramaram toda essa
confusão), Israel decidiu oferecer aos comandantes do navio que parassem
para inspeção em alto mar. Mandaríamos soldados para inspecionar o navio e
se não houvesse armamento ele poderia seguir rumo a Gaza. ESSA FOI UMA
ATITUDE EXTREMAMENTE PACIFISTA DO NOSSO EXÉRCITO, EM RESPEITO AOS CIVIS QUE
ESTAVAM NO NAVIO. E, SE NÃO HÁ ARMAMENTO NO NAVIO, QUAL É O PROBLEMA DE QUE
ELE SEJA INSPECIONADO?
- Os comandantes do navio concordaram com a inspeção.
5:00h - Minha chegada em Gaza. Exatamente no momento em que os soldados
estavam entrando nos barcos. E FORAM GRATUITAMENTE ATACADOS: tiveram suas
armas roubadas, foram espancados e esfaqueados. Mais soldados foram
enviados, desta vez para controlar o conflito. Cerca de 50 pessoas se
envolveram no conflito, 9 morreram. Morreram aqueles que tentaram matar
nossos soldados, aqueles que não eram civis pacifistas da ONU, mas sim
militantes terroristas que comandavam o grupo. Todos os demais 22 feridos
entre os tripulantes do navio, foram ATENDIDOS E RESGATADOS POR NÓS, EU E
MINHA EQUIPE E ENVIADOS PARA OS MELHORES HOSPITAIS EM ISRAEL.
- Entre nós, 9 feridos. Tiros, facadas e espancamento. Um deles ainda está
em estado gravíssimo após concussão e 6 tiros no tronco. Meninos entre 18 e
22 anos, que tinham ordem para inspecionar um navio da ONU e não ferir
ninguém. E não o fizeram. Israel não disparou nem o primeiro, nem o
segundo tiro. Fomos punidos por confiar no suposto pacifismo da ONU. Se
soubéssemos a intenção do grupo, jamais teríamos enviados nossos jovens
praticamente desarmados para dentro do navio. Ele teria sim sido atacado
pelo mar. E agora todos os que ainda levantam a voz contra Israel estariam
no fundo mar.
- Depois de atender os nossos soldados, me juntei a outra parte da nossa
equipe que já cuidava dos tripulantes. Mesmo com braceletes dizendo MÉDICO
em quatro línguas (inglês, turco, árabe e hebraico) e estetoscópios no
pescoço, também a nós eles tentaram agredir. Um deles cuspiu no nosso
cirurgião. Um outro deu um soco na enfermeira que tentava medicá-lo. ALÉM
DE AGRESSORES, SÃO TAMBÉM INGRATOS.
- Eu trabalhei por 6 horas seguidas atendendo somente tripulantes do navio.
Todo o suprimento médico e ajuda foram oferecidos por Israel.
- Depois do final da confusão o navio foi finalmente inspecionado. LOTADO
DE ARMAS BRANCAS E MATERIAL PARA CONFECÇÃO DE BOMBAS CASEIRAS. ONDE É QUE
ESTÁ O PACIFISMO DA ONU???
- Na terça-feira, fui visitar não só os nossos soldados, mas também os
feridos do navio. Essa é a política que Israel tenta manter: nós não
matamos civis como os terroristas árabes. Nós não nos recusamos a enviar
ajuda a Gaza. Nós não queremos mais guerra. MAS JAMAIS VAMOS PERMITIR QUE
MATEM OS NOSSOS SOLDADOS.
Só milionário idiota que acha lindo ser missionário da ONU não entende
que guerra não é lugar para civis se meterem. Havia um bebê no barco
(que saiu ileso, obviamente): alguém pode explicar por que uma mãe
coloca um bebê em um navio a caminho de uma zona de guerra? Onde eles
querem chegar com isso? ELES NÃO ENTENDEM QUE FORAM USADOS COMO
FERRAMENTA CONTRA ISRAEL, E QUE A INTENÇÃO NUNCA FOI ENVIAR AJUDA A
GAZA E SIM GERAR POLÊMICA E CRIAR AINDA MAIS OPOSIÇÃO INTERNACIONAL. E
CONTINUAM SEM ENTENDER QUE DAR FORÇA AO TERRORISMO DO HAMAS, DO
HEZBOLLAH OU DO IRÃ SÓ SIGNIFICA MAIS PERIGO. NÃO SÓ A ISRAEL, MAS AO
MUNDO TODO.
E o presidente Lula precisa também entender que desta guerra ele não
entende. E QUE O BRASIL JÁ TEM PROBLEMAS DEMAIS SEM RESOLVER. TEM MAIS
GENTE PASSANDO FOME QUE GAZA. TEM MUITO MAIS GENTE MORRENDO VÍTIMA DA
VIOLÊNCIA URBANA NO RIO DO QUE MORTOS NAS GUERRAS DAQUI. E PASSAR A
CUIDAR DOS PROBLEMAS DAÍ. DOS DAQUI, CUIDAMOS NÓS.
Eu sempre me orgulho de ser também brasileira. Mas nesta semana chorei.
De raiva, de raiva de ver que especialmente no Brasil, muito mais do
que em qualquer outro lugar, as notícias são absolutamente destorcidas.
E isso é lamentável.
Não me entendam mal. Eu não acho que todos os árabes são terroristas.
MAS SEI QUE QUEM OS CONTROLA HOJE É. E que esta guerra não é só contra
Israel. O Islamismo prega o EXTERMÍNIO de TODO o mundo não árabe. Nós
só somos os primeiros da lista negra.
Por favor encaminhem este e-mail aos que ainda não entendem que guerra
é guerra e que os terroristas não são coitadinhos.
Eu prometo escrever da próxima vez com melhores notícias e melhor
humor. Tenho algumas boas aventuras pra contar.
Um beijo a todos
Shabat Shalom
He send me this e-mail in portuguese ( i will try to post a translated version ASAP).
Hi my friends,
I don't know who understands Portuguese or not. And since this is my Beazilian channel, I'm sendinh to all of you an e-mail from a Brazilian girl, soldier in IDF, who was with the troop that bordered the Turkish ship.
She tells, not what she read or heard but what she lived.
"envio depoimento de uma amiga que está servindo o Exército e que esteve no
episódio Flotilha. O depoimento foi enviado a outro amigo e tem permissão de
ser repassado, e vale a pena ler, divulgar, esclarecer.
Paz,
abraços,
Ania
"recebi o e-mail da amiga Ana Luiza Tapia, um doce de pessoa que fez aliá há
cerca de 2,5 anos e atualmente está servindo no exército, na área médica. Ela
conta com suas palavras um pouco do que se passou por lá, e com sua permissão
explícita ao fim deste e-mail, permitiu passá-lo adiante. A Ana é uma pessoa
doce, dedicada aos amigos, séria em seu trabalho, sionista convicta e que faz
o que pode para ajudar quem seja - e sou prova disso.
Que tenhamos todos um shabat shalom,
Uri Lam"
"Oi a todos!!
Primeiro quero agradecer a todos os e-mails preocupados. Eu estou bem,
ótima. Eu peço desculpas por não escrever mais frequentemente, mas no
exército é assim. Não temos tempo para nada.
Sei que todos já estão cansados de ouvir falar do que aconteceu em Gaza
nesta semana, mas como ouvi muitas asneiras por aí, resolvi contar a
vocês a minha versão da história. Eu não quero que pensem que virei
alguma ativista ou algo do gênero. Eu continuo a mesma Ana de sempre.
Mas por ter feito parte desse episódio, não posso me abster de falar a
verdade dos fatos.
EU ESTAVA LÁ! NINGUÉM ME CONTOU. NÃO LI NO JORNAL. NÃO VI FOTOS NA
INTERNET OU VÍDEOS NO YOUTUBE. VI TUDO COMO FOI MESMO, AO VIVO E COM
MUITAS CORES.
Como vocês sabem, eu estou servindo com médica na medicina de
emergência do exército de Israel, departamento de trauma. Isso
significa: medicina em campo.
4:30h da manhã de segunda-feira: meu telefone do exército começa a tocar.
Possíveis conflito em Gaza? Pedido de ajuda da força médica, garantir que
não faltarão médicos. Minha ordem: aprontar-me rapidamente e pegar
suprimentos, o helicóptero virá me buscar na base.
No caminho, me explicam a situação. Há um navio da ONU tentando furar a
barreira em Gaza. Li todos os registros fornecidos pela inteligência do
exército (até para entender o tamanho da situação).
- O navio se aproximou da costa a caminho de Gaza. O acordo entre
Israel e a ONU é que TODOS os barcos devem ser inspecionados no porto
de Ashdod em Israel e todos os suprimentos devem ser transportados pelo
NOSSO exército a Gaza. Isso porque AINDA HOJE, cerca de 14 mísseis tem
sido lançados de Gaza contra Israel diariamente. E não podemos permitir
que mais armamento e material para construção de bombas seja enviado ao
Hamas, grupo terrorista que controla gaza. Dessa forma, evitamos uma
nova guerra. Ao menos por agora.
- O navio se recusou a parar. Disseram que eles mesmo entregariam a carga a
Gaza.
- Assim, diante de um navio com 95% de civis inocentes (os outros 5% são
ativistas de grupos terroristas aliados ao Hamas, que tramaram toda essa
confusão), Israel decidiu oferecer aos comandantes do navio que parassem
para inspeção em alto mar. Mandaríamos soldados para inspecionar o navio e
se não houvesse armamento ele poderia seguir rumo a Gaza. ESSA FOI UMA
ATITUDE EXTREMAMENTE PACIFISTA DO NOSSO EXÉRCITO, EM RESPEITO AOS CIVIS QUE
ESTAVAM NO NAVIO. E, SE NÃO HÁ ARMAMENTO NO NAVIO, QUAL É O PROBLEMA DE QUE
ELE SEJA INSPECIONADO?
- Os comandantes do navio concordaram com a inspeção.
5:00h - Minha chegada em Gaza. Exatamente no momento em que os soldados
estavam entrando nos barcos. E FORAM GRATUITAMENTE ATACADOS: tiveram suas
armas roubadas, foram espancados e esfaqueados. Mais soldados foram
enviados, desta vez para controlar o conflito. Cerca de 50 pessoas se
envolveram no conflito, 9 morreram. Morreram aqueles que tentaram matar
nossos soldados, aqueles que não eram civis pacifistas da ONU, mas sim
militantes terroristas que comandavam o grupo. Todos os demais 22 feridos
entre os tripulantes do navio, foram ATENDIDOS E RESGATADOS POR NÓS, EU E
MINHA EQUIPE E ENVIADOS PARA OS MELHORES HOSPITAIS EM ISRAEL.
- Entre nós, 9 feridos. Tiros, facadas e espancamento. Um deles ainda está
em estado gravíssimo após concussão e 6 tiros no tronco. Meninos entre 18 e
22 anos, que tinham ordem para inspecionar um navio da ONU e não ferir
ninguém. E não o fizeram. Israel não disparou nem o primeiro, nem o
segundo tiro. Fomos punidos por confiar no suposto pacifismo da ONU. Se
soubéssemos a intenção do grupo, jamais teríamos enviados nossos jovens
praticamente desarmados para dentro do navio. Ele teria sim sido atacado
pelo mar. E agora todos os que ainda levantam a voz contra Israel estariam
no fundo mar.
- Depois de atender os nossos soldados, me juntei a outra parte da nossa
equipe que já cuidava dos tripulantes. Mesmo com braceletes dizendo MÉDICO
em quatro línguas (inglês, turco, árabe e hebraico) e estetoscópios no
pescoço, também a nós eles tentaram agredir. Um deles cuspiu no nosso
cirurgião. Um outro deu um soco na enfermeira que tentava medicá-lo. ALÉM
DE AGRESSORES, SÃO TAMBÉM INGRATOS.
- Eu trabalhei por 6 horas seguidas atendendo somente tripulantes do navio.
Todo o suprimento médico e ajuda foram oferecidos por Israel.
- Depois do final da confusão o navio foi finalmente inspecionado. LOTADO
DE ARMAS BRANCAS E MATERIAL PARA CONFECÇÃO DE BOMBAS CASEIRAS. ONDE É QUE
ESTÁ O PACIFISMO DA ONU???
- Na terça-feira, fui visitar não só os nossos soldados, mas também os
feridos do navio. Essa é a política que Israel tenta manter: nós não
matamos civis como os terroristas árabes. Nós não nos recusamos a enviar
ajuda a Gaza. Nós não queremos mais guerra. MAS JAMAIS VAMOS PERMITIR QUE
MATEM OS NOSSOS SOLDADOS.
Só milionário idiota que acha lindo ser missionário da ONU não entende
que guerra não é lugar para civis se meterem. Havia um bebê no barco
(que saiu ileso, obviamente): alguém pode explicar por que uma mãe
coloca um bebê em um navio a caminho de uma zona de guerra? Onde eles
querem chegar com isso? ELES NÃO ENTENDEM QUE FORAM USADOS COMO
FERRAMENTA CONTRA ISRAEL, E QUE A INTENÇÃO NUNCA FOI ENVIAR AJUDA A
GAZA E SIM GERAR POLÊMICA E CRIAR AINDA MAIS OPOSIÇÃO INTERNACIONAL. E
CONTINUAM SEM ENTENDER QUE DAR FORÇA AO TERRORISMO DO HAMAS, DO
HEZBOLLAH OU DO IRÃ SÓ SIGNIFICA MAIS PERIGO. NÃO SÓ A ISRAEL, MAS AO
MUNDO TODO.
E o presidente Lula precisa também entender que desta guerra ele não
entende. E QUE O BRASIL JÁ TEM PROBLEMAS DEMAIS SEM RESOLVER. TEM MAIS
GENTE PASSANDO FOME QUE GAZA. TEM MUITO MAIS GENTE MORRENDO VÍTIMA DA
VIOLÊNCIA URBANA NO RIO DO QUE MORTOS NAS GUERRAS DAQUI. E PASSAR A
CUIDAR DOS PROBLEMAS DAÍ. DOS DAQUI, CUIDAMOS NÓS.
Eu sempre me orgulho de ser também brasileira. Mas nesta semana chorei.
De raiva, de raiva de ver que especialmente no Brasil, muito mais do
que em qualquer outro lugar, as notícias são absolutamente destorcidas.
E isso é lamentável.
Não me entendam mal. Eu não acho que todos os árabes são terroristas.
MAS SEI QUE QUEM OS CONTROLA HOJE É. E que esta guerra não é só contra
Israel. O Islamismo prega o EXTERMÍNIO de TODO o mundo não árabe. Nós
só somos os primeiros da lista negra.
Por favor encaminhem este e-mail aos que ainda não entendem que guerra
é guerra e que os terroristas não são coitadinhos.
Eu prometo escrever da próxima vez com melhores notícias e melhor
humor. Tenho algumas boas aventuras pra contar.
Um beijo a todos
Shabat Shalom
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Losing Their Religion
Although many won’t admit it, we are in the midst of an ideological war with Islam. And since the advantage goes to the side that fully realizes they are at war, the West is losing. The propaganda war is going in favor of Islam precisely because the West doesn’t realize it is supposed to be fighting one. The ability of Islam to rally much of the world behind its hatred of Israel is a telling indication of who is winning the war of ideas. As for war aims, it’s not clear that there are any. Even those who see the danger clearly rarely talk in terms of victory; they talk mainly in terms of resisting cultural jihad. You know you’re in trouble when your ideological opponent is a primitive seventh-century belief system, and yet the best that your top strategists hope for is to put up a good resistance.
As the Dracula-like return of Communist ideology demonstrates, an ideological war needs to be fought to complete and total victory. The enemy ideology should be so thoroughly discredited that no one—not even its former staunchest defenders, not even the most doctrinaire college professor—will want to be associated with it. In regard to Islam, then, our aim should go beyond simply resisting jihad; it should be the defeat of Islam as an idea. But, aside from inflicting crushing military defeats on Islamic powers, how do you accomplish that?
One answer is that you do all you can to force Muslims to question their faith in Islam. As Mark Steyn observes, “there’s no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.” He was speaking, of course, of the more mushy versions of Western Christianity—the post-Christian Christians who seem anxious to dialogue themselves into dhimmitude. But there’s no reason the concept can’t be applied to Islam. Surely the average intelligent Muslim has occasional doubts about the founding revelations. And just as surely he keeps them to himself, not only because he fears his fellow Muslims, but also because the rest of the world seems to be going along with the pretense that he belongs to a great religion. It may be time for the rest of the world to drop the pretense.
If one of your opponents’ core beliefs is that you need to be subjugated, why wouldn’t you want to foster doubts in his mind? Jihadists commit jihad because they correctly perceive that their religion calls them to it. As long as they are kept secure in the illusion that their faith is unassailable, they will continue the jihad by whatever means seem most expedient. They won’t question their faith—and neither will the majority of Muslims—unless they get used to the fact that it can be questioned and criticized.
One man who has done a lot to shake up the faith of Muslims is Fr. Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest who hosts a weekly Arabic language TV program watched by millions of Muslims around the world. Among other things, the engaging Fr. Botros forces his Muslim audience to confront unflattering facts about their prophet. He also talks to them about the Christian faith—something that most Muslims know very little about, beyond some simple caricatures. Apparently he is very successful at what he does. According to reports he is responsible for mass conversions to Christianity.
Does such questioning of Muhammad’s character provoke anger among Muslims? Well, yes, it does. The elderly Fr. Botros has been labeled Islam’s “Public Enemy #1,” and a reported $60 million bounty has been put on his head. But, according to a recent piece by Raymond Ibrahim, “the outrage appears to be subsiding.” Ibrahim contends that Life TV (the satellite station that carries Fr. Botros’ program) “has conditioned its Muslim viewers to accept that exposure and criticism of their prophet is here to stay.” The first time a Muslim hears the moral flaws of the Prophet exposed, he may well be angry at the exposure. But how about the third time? The tenth time? The twentieth time? What initially provokes anger might eventually provoke doubts about Muhammad’s claims.
There are those who think that such efforts are doomed to failure—that Islam is too deeply rooted in the Muslim world. But deeply held beliefs are not always as deeply rooted as they seem. Thirty-five years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that the Catholic faith was deeply rooted in Ireland, but if you said it today you would be going out on a limb. More to the point, Islam itself was less “deeply rooted” 60 years ago in the Middle East than it is now. Consider this recollection by Ali A. Allawi, a former Iraqi cabinet minister:
I was born into a mildly observant family in Iraq. At that time, the 1950’s, secularism was ascendant among the political, cultural, and intellectual elites of the Middle East. It appeared to be only a matter of time before Islam would lose whatever hold it still had on the Muslim world. Even that term—“Muslim world”—was unusual, as Muslims were more likely to identify themselves by their national, ethnic, or ideological affinities than by their religion.
Deeply rooted? Perhaps you’ve seen that sequence of photos of the University of Cairo graduating classes for the English Department. The women of the Class of 1959 look like college students anywhere in the Western world circa 1959. They wear Western style skirts and dresses and no head covering. Ditto for the class of 1978. It could be the class of ’78 at the University of Chicago. But by 1994 half the women are wearing hijabs. By 2004 almost all the women are wearing hijabs and ankle-length clothing. So, sometime in the 1990’s educated Muslims apparently began to take their faith more seriously. They appear to take it very seriously now. But how “deeply rooted” is twenty years?
Given that the penalty for leaving Islam—or even criticizing it—can be death, we may be mistaking deeply rooted fear for deeply rooted faith. Moreover, the fact that Islam prescribes such harsh penalties for doubters suggests that the faith itself is not intrinsically convincing. As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said, “People cannot be made obedient except with the sword.” Any religion that needs so many external incentives—swords behind you, and virgins in your future—cries out to be questioned. Unfortunately, instead of exploiting its theological weaknesses the West insists on chivalrously shielding Islam from the kind of scrutiny that the West reserves for its own institutions and traditions. And with good reason. Because it’s generally understood, though rarely said, that Muhammad’s claims would not meet the tests of critical reason and historical evidence that we apply to the Judeo-Christian revelation. The much revered sufi theologian al-Ghazali wrote, “The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his Prophet…” You can see why. Curiosity didn’t kill Christianity, but curiosity would almost certainly kill the Caliphate—or, in our times, the hope for a resurrected Caliphate. Obliged not to mention the Prophet? Given the threat Islam poses to the world and to Muslims themselves, it’s beginning to look as though the obligation runs the other way. The world needs to take a much closer look at the Prophet and his claims. The Prophet is Islam’s main prop. If he is discredited, Islam is discredited. Hence, the mighty efforts by the OIC to make it a crime to blaspheme a prophet.
The Prophet’s integrity is not the only thing in doubt. Theologically speaking, Islam is a house of cards. The whole faith rests on the belief that Muhammad actually received a revelation from God. But where’s the proof? Were there any witnesses to this revelation other than Muhammad? Why should we take his word for it? Why were there so many revelations of convenience that worked directly to Muhammad’s personal advantage? Are there really dozens of renewable virgins awaiting young warriors in paradise, or was this revelation simply a clever recruitment tool manufactured by Muhammad to provide an incentive for following him? And why is the Koran, despite its flashes of poetic brilliance, put together like a soviet-era automobile? As an exercise in composition the Koran would not pass muster in most freshmen writing courses. Why can’t God write as well as the average college student?
Ordinarily it’s not a good idea to go around questioning other people’s firmly held beliefs. But these are not ordinary times, and Islam is no ordinary religion. As any number of observes have noted, it’s partly a religion and partly a supremacist political ideology—although no one seems to be able to say exactly what percent is political ideology and what percent is religion. Is it 50/50 or 60/40 or 80/20? Is it legitimate to criticize the political part of it, but not the religious part? How do you tell where the politics leaves off and the religion begins? Or are they so bound together that they can’t be separated?
If you remember “Joe Palooka,” the old comic strip series about a decent but not-too-bright heavyweight boxer, you might remember that one of Joe’s craftier opponents once tattooed his rather expansive stomach with the word “Mother” inscribed within a large heart. His midsection was his weak spot, of course, but he knew he could count on Joe to avoid hitting him there, Joe being too much of a gentleman to do otherwise. In On the Waterfront, Marlon Brando’s character refers to the place where failed fighters go as “palookaville.” Currently, our whole culture is in danger of ending up in “palookaville” because there are large areas of Islam we decline to examine out of a sense of delicacy that would be excessive in a Victorian matron. Islamic strategists are counting on polite Westerners not to hit them in their soft spot.
Islamic strategists invoke the supremacist principles of the Koran in order to stir up aggression against the Muslim world, yet any criticism of Islam is met with cries of, “No fair! You are blaspheming a prophet and his religion.” So far, the shame-on-you-for-criticizing-a-religion strategy has worked very effectively. Fortunately, a few, like Fr. Botros, aren’t buying into the ruse. He has enough respect for Muslims as individuals to realize that their religion should not be put beyond discussion. Many Muslims, especially Muslim women, suffer a profound sense of desperation: the feeling of being trapped in a 1400-year-old nightmare, with no way out. It’s difficult to see any convincing argument for propping up the system that oppresses them. On the contrary, it seems almost a duty to undermine that system—political and religious—and call it into question at every turn.
In past ideological struggles we wisely sought ideological victory—the discrediting of the belief system that inspired our enemies. Because the driving force behind Islamic aggression is Islamic theology, it makes no sense to treat Islamic theology like a protected species. Rather, we should hope that Muslims lose faith in Islam just as Nazis lost faith in Nazism and Eastern-bloc Communists lost faith in communism.
Of course, it would be all the better if, like Fr. Botros, we had something to offer them in its place. Winston Churchill once said that Greer Garson, for her role in Mrs. Miniver, was worth six divisions in the war against Hitler. It seems safe to say that Fr. Botros, for his role in instilling doubts about Islam and giving Muslims something solid in its place, is worth at least a couple of Departments of Homeland Security.
William Kilpatrick’s articles have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, First Things, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily.
As the Dracula-like return of Communist ideology demonstrates, an ideological war needs to be fought to complete and total victory. The enemy ideology should be so thoroughly discredited that no one—not even its former staunchest defenders, not even the most doctrinaire college professor—will want to be associated with it. In regard to Islam, then, our aim should go beyond simply resisting jihad; it should be the defeat of Islam as an idea. But, aside from inflicting crushing military defeats on Islamic powers, how do you accomplish that?
One answer is that you do all you can to force Muslims to question their faith in Islam. As Mark Steyn observes, “there’s no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.” He was speaking, of course, of the more mushy versions of Western Christianity—the post-Christian Christians who seem anxious to dialogue themselves into dhimmitude. But there’s no reason the concept can’t be applied to Islam. Surely the average intelligent Muslim has occasional doubts about the founding revelations. And just as surely he keeps them to himself, not only because he fears his fellow Muslims, but also because the rest of the world seems to be going along with the pretense that he belongs to a great religion. It may be time for the rest of the world to drop the pretense.
If one of your opponents’ core beliefs is that you need to be subjugated, why wouldn’t you want to foster doubts in his mind? Jihadists commit jihad because they correctly perceive that their religion calls them to it. As long as they are kept secure in the illusion that their faith is unassailable, they will continue the jihad by whatever means seem most expedient. They won’t question their faith—and neither will the majority of Muslims—unless they get used to the fact that it can be questioned and criticized.
One man who has done a lot to shake up the faith of Muslims is Fr. Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest who hosts a weekly Arabic language TV program watched by millions of Muslims around the world. Among other things, the engaging Fr. Botros forces his Muslim audience to confront unflattering facts about their prophet. He also talks to them about the Christian faith—something that most Muslims know very little about, beyond some simple caricatures. Apparently he is very successful at what he does. According to reports he is responsible for mass conversions to Christianity.
Does such questioning of Muhammad’s character provoke anger among Muslims? Well, yes, it does. The elderly Fr. Botros has been labeled Islam’s “Public Enemy #1,” and a reported $60 million bounty has been put on his head. But, according to a recent piece by Raymond Ibrahim, “the outrage appears to be subsiding.” Ibrahim contends that Life TV (the satellite station that carries Fr. Botros’ program) “has conditioned its Muslim viewers to accept that exposure and criticism of their prophet is here to stay.” The first time a Muslim hears the moral flaws of the Prophet exposed, he may well be angry at the exposure. But how about the third time? The tenth time? The twentieth time? What initially provokes anger might eventually provoke doubts about Muhammad’s claims.
There are those who think that such efforts are doomed to failure—that Islam is too deeply rooted in the Muslim world. But deeply held beliefs are not always as deeply rooted as they seem. Thirty-five years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that the Catholic faith was deeply rooted in Ireland, but if you said it today you would be going out on a limb. More to the point, Islam itself was less “deeply rooted” 60 years ago in the Middle East than it is now. Consider this recollection by Ali A. Allawi, a former Iraqi cabinet minister:
I was born into a mildly observant family in Iraq. At that time, the 1950’s, secularism was ascendant among the political, cultural, and intellectual elites of the Middle East. It appeared to be only a matter of time before Islam would lose whatever hold it still had on the Muslim world. Even that term—“Muslim world”—was unusual, as Muslims were more likely to identify themselves by their national, ethnic, or ideological affinities than by their religion.
Deeply rooted? Perhaps you’ve seen that sequence of photos of the University of Cairo graduating classes for the English Department. The women of the Class of 1959 look like college students anywhere in the Western world circa 1959. They wear Western style skirts and dresses and no head covering. Ditto for the class of 1978. It could be the class of ’78 at the University of Chicago. But by 1994 half the women are wearing hijabs. By 2004 almost all the women are wearing hijabs and ankle-length clothing. So, sometime in the 1990’s educated Muslims apparently began to take their faith more seriously. They appear to take it very seriously now. But how “deeply rooted” is twenty years?
Given that the penalty for leaving Islam—or even criticizing it—can be death, we may be mistaking deeply rooted fear for deeply rooted faith. Moreover, the fact that Islam prescribes such harsh penalties for doubters suggests that the faith itself is not intrinsically convincing. As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said, “People cannot be made obedient except with the sword.” Any religion that needs so many external incentives—swords behind you, and virgins in your future—cries out to be questioned. Unfortunately, instead of exploiting its theological weaknesses the West insists on chivalrously shielding Islam from the kind of scrutiny that the West reserves for its own institutions and traditions. And with good reason. Because it’s generally understood, though rarely said, that Muhammad’s claims would not meet the tests of critical reason and historical evidence that we apply to the Judeo-Christian revelation. The much revered sufi theologian al-Ghazali wrote, “The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his Prophet…” You can see why. Curiosity didn’t kill Christianity, but curiosity would almost certainly kill the Caliphate—or, in our times, the hope for a resurrected Caliphate. Obliged not to mention the Prophet? Given the threat Islam poses to the world and to Muslims themselves, it’s beginning to look as though the obligation runs the other way. The world needs to take a much closer look at the Prophet and his claims. The Prophet is Islam’s main prop. If he is discredited, Islam is discredited. Hence, the mighty efforts by the OIC to make it a crime to blaspheme a prophet.
The Prophet’s integrity is not the only thing in doubt. Theologically speaking, Islam is a house of cards. The whole faith rests on the belief that Muhammad actually received a revelation from God. But where’s the proof? Were there any witnesses to this revelation other than Muhammad? Why should we take his word for it? Why were there so many revelations of convenience that worked directly to Muhammad’s personal advantage? Are there really dozens of renewable virgins awaiting young warriors in paradise, or was this revelation simply a clever recruitment tool manufactured by Muhammad to provide an incentive for following him? And why is the Koran, despite its flashes of poetic brilliance, put together like a soviet-era automobile? As an exercise in composition the Koran would not pass muster in most freshmen writing courses. Why can’t God write as well as the average college student?
Ordinarily it’s not a good idea to go around questioning other people’s firmly held beliefs. But these are not ordinary times, and Islam is no ordinary religion. As any number of observes have noted, it’s partly a religion and partly a supremacist political ideology—although no one seems to be able to say exactly what percent is political ideology and what percent is religion. Is it 50/50 or 60/40 or 80/20? Is it legitimate to criticize the political part of it, but not the religious part? How do you tell where the politics leaves off and the religion begins? Or are they so bound together that they can’t be separated?
If you remember “Joe Palooka,” the old comic strip series about a decent but not-too-bright heavyweight boxer, you might remember that one of Joe’s craftier opponents once tattooed his rather expansive stomach with the word “Mother” inscribed within a large heart. His midsection was his weak spot, of course, but he knew he could count on Joe to avoid hitting him there, Joe being too much of a gentleman to do otherwise. In On the Waterfront, Marlon Brando’s character refers to the place where failed fighters go as “palookaville.” Currently, our whole culture is in danger of ending up in “palookaville” because there are large areas of Islam we decline to examine out of a sense of delicacy that would be excessive in a Victorian matron. Islamic strategists are counting on polite Westerners not to hit them in their soft spot.
Islamic strategists invoke the supremacist principles of the Koran in order to stir up aggression against the Muslim world, yet any criticism of Islam is met with cries of, “No fair! You are blaspheming a prophet and his religion.” So far, the shame-on-you-for-criticizing-a-religion strategy has worked very effectively. Fortunately, a few, like Fr. Botros, aren’t buying into the ruse. He has enough respect for Muslims as individuals to realize that their religion should not be put beyond discussion. Many Muslims, especially Muslim women, suffer a profound sense of desperation: the feeling of being trapped in a 1400-year-old nightmare, with no way out. It’s difficult to see any convincing argument for propping up the system that oppresses them. On the contrary, it seems almost a duty to undermine that system—political and religious—and call it into question at every turn.
In past ideological struggles we wisely sought ideological victory—the discrediting of the belief system that inspired our enemies. Because the driving force behind Islamic aggression is Islamic theology, it makes no sense to treat Islamic theology like a protected species. Rather, we should hope that Muslims lose faith in Islam just as Nazis lost faith in Nazism and Eastern-bloc Communists lost faith in communism.
Of course, it would be all the better if, like Fr. Botros, we had something to offer them in its place. Winston Churchill once said that Greer Garson, for her role in Mrs. Miniver, was worth six divisions in the war against Hitler. It seems safe to say that Fr. Botros, for his role in instilling doubts about Islam and giving Muslims something solid in its place, is worth at least a couple of Departments of Homeland Security.
William Kilpatrick’s articles have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, First Things, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily.
The Qur’an Says that Allah does NOT Love Unbelievers
Christianity teaches that God loves all people, but hates sin. The Qur’an never says this. Instead it explicitly declares that Allah does not love those who do not believe in him:
For He loves not those who reject Faith (30:45)
Allah only loves those who obey Muhammad (at least according to Muhammad, who provided the "narration"):
Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. (3:32)
Instead of a god that loves the sinner, even while hating the sin, the wrath of Allah is placed squarely on the individual:
Surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful. (22:38)
Verses 11:118-199 say that Allah does not bestow mercy on everyone. For this reason, he chooses not to guide some people:
And Allah's is the direction of the way, and some (roads) go not straight. And had He willed He would have led you all aright. (16:9)
For those whom Allah does not love, there will be the most terrible of eternal torments:
Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56)
"Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98) and, as we shall see, he hates them so much that he even leads them into sinning and actively prevents them from believing in him, thus ensuring their fate.
For He loves not those who reject Faith (30:45)
Allah only loves those who obey Muhammad (at least according to Muhammad, who provided the "narration"):
Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. (3:32)
Instead of a god that loves the sinner, even while hating the sin, the wrath of Allah is placed squarely on the individual:
Surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful. (22:38)
Verses 11:118-199 say that Allah does not bestow mercy on everyone. For this reason, he chooses not to guide some people:
And Allah's is the direction of the way, and some (roads) go not straight. And had He willed He would have led you all aright. (16:9)
For those whom Allah does not love, there will be the most terrible of eternal torments:
Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56)
"Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98) and, as we shall see, he hates them so much that he even leads them into sinning and actively prevents them from believing in him, thus ensuring their fate.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
FLOTILLA AFFAIR
The following is the proper reply to all the current ranting about the Flotilla skirmish. My source is IMRA, but it is not their original content, so I am going to reproduce the whole thing. I assume the Israeli Foreign Ministry wanted it distributed:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs 31 May 2010 - distributed May 31, 2010 5:18 PM
A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. It has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza.
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks
Ministry of Foreign Affairs 31 May 2010 - distributed May 31, 2010 5:18 PM
A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. It has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza.
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks
Friday, June 4, 2010
FLOTILLAS AND THE WARS OF PUBLIC OPINION
May 31st, 2010 by admin.
This article is republished, with permission, from Stratfor.
By George Friedman
On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.
A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.
The ‘Exodus’ Scenario
In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.
There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.
It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.
The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.
The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.
In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.
The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza
The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.
The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.
The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.
Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.
The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel
It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.
In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.
The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.
With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.
Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.
The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.
Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.
While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.
The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).
Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.
And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.
Copyright 2010 Stratfor.
This article is republished, with permission, from Stratfor.
By George Friedman
On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.
A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.
The ‘Exodus’ Scenario
In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.
There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.
It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.
The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.
The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.
In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.
The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza
The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.
The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.
The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.
Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.
The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel
It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.
In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.
The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.
With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.
Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.
The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.
Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.
While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.
The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).
Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.
And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.
Copyright 2010 Stratfor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)