The brilliant thinking award goes to the Iranians who would rather let their people die than to accept any help offered by the "Zionist" enemy. Good going...20-70,000 people are supposed dead by an earthquake -- but NO! we won't accept help from the Jews.
Anyone else notice that the Israeli offer for help that Iran turned down didn't make it to the mainstream news? Big surprise there.
Yup, another suicide bomber. I love it, the evening news tonight equated the death of a terrorist from the Islamic Jihad to the murder of civilians in Tel Aviv.
It has been brought to my attention that the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quote I used in my “White Supremacy” article printed last week was made up. I quoted from another source that was not aware that it was not a true statement. I am certainly grateful that the editors and readers of The South End are checking the sources of my articles. I pride myself in doing research for my writing and it is very important that I give accurate information. I am quite disappointed in my error.
The excerpt I used was from a “Letter to a Anti-Zionist Friend” supposedly written by Dr. King. While we now know that this letter was never written, it is important to see in what other place this letter has shown itself. According to the media watchdog CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, www.camera.org), this letter is not found anywhere prior to 1999. On the other hand, they did find a copy of it in the book “Shared Dreams” by Marc Shneier whose preface was written by Martin Luther King III. Obviously Dr. King’s family was also unaware that this “Letter” was a hoax.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence to show that Dr. King was a strong supporter of Jews and Israel. In fact, when he spoke at Harvard University in 1968, he was quoted as saying “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.” (“The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; Encounter magazine, Dec. 1969, p. 24).
U.S. Representative John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia worked directly with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Lewis wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle January 21, 2002 about Dr. King and his relationship with the State of Israel. Lewis explained that Dr. King saw a strong connection between the Jewish and the African-American communities. He saw that both peoples had been oppressed and murdered just because of who they were. Dr. King was one of the first to bring attention to the persecution of Jews in the former Soviet Union. “I cannot stand idly by....For what happens to them happens to me and you, and we must be concerned.”
Dr. King saw the creation of the Jewish State in 1948 and the miraculous six day victory of Israel over its neighbors in 1967. He saw when Israel took the historic lands of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) back and was clear about his vision for the State of Israel. On March 25, 1968 he stated that, “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done....Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”
Again, I apologize for the mistake I made in last weeks article in The South End, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct that mistake. Dr. King was a great man, and it would be a dishonor to him to misquote his message of brotherhood between the Jewish and African-American communities.
(www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html)
On my way to class this week I noticed something being assembled in Gullen Mall, and went to check it out afterwards. It was an “apartheid wall” supposedly resembling the wall that is being constructed in Israel. What struck me was how it was called an “apartheid” wall. This brings to mind segregation and racism. In addition I was handed a flier explaining that “Israel has purposely decided not to stand in solidarity with the people of color in the Middle East, and instead sell itself white supremacy.” [grammar wrong in the flier] I think that this is quite funny, considering that if Israel had an apartheid system there would be no fear of bus bombings.
In addition, the flier also mentions that “In the last 30 years Zionists (people who support Israel) have played a powerful yet unnoticed role in combating civil rights.” It goes on to list several militant civil rights groups of the 1960s, but neglects to mention the key man that should be included in any civil rights discussion. Dr. Martin Luther King. Why is he not included? The group handing out the flier did not mention Dr. King because he was a strong supporter of the State of Israel. “You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land....The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just ‘anti-Zionist’!...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it.”(From M.L.King Jr., “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend,” Saturday Review XLVII (Aug 1967) pg. 76) This letter was written in August 1967. Dr. King had watched the 6 Day War and was quite aware of the situation of the time.
I can assume by reading through this flier that anyone who is a supporter of the State of Israel is a white supremist. Wow! That means that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a white supremist. I guess that he would have been surprised to find that out. I can also assume that all Zionists (and Jews) would have to be white Europeans. Huh! I wonder about all those Jews in Israel that are not from Europe. I suppose that the Jews from the Arab countries, African countries, and South American countries would be startled to find out that they are all “white”. Especially the Ethiopian Jews. One day they’re black, the next they’re white.
Taking this a step further, one would think that white supremists are not interested in helping other people not like themselves. Surprise! Maybe they are. That is if we are talking about Zionists. Looking back into the last decade, Israel has been involved with humanitarian aid around the world. In 1990, Israel was in the Philippines bringing medical supplies because of an earthquake. The next year the Zionist white supremists were bringing medical aid to Turkey (helping the Iraqi Kurds), Zaire, China and Congo. Please notice the “people of color” that Israel deliberately ignores and chooses not to help. In 1992, Israel sent money to help the Somali refugees in Kenya that were starving. And until today, Israel - the Zionist entity, helped in the areas of: India, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Indonesia, Kosovo, Greece, Rwanda, China, Nepal, Papua New Guinea and Bosnia/Herzegovina. Here’s a game to play. How many of these countries have white Europeans who live there? (www.israaid.org.il/mda_print7.asp)
Wouldn’t it be great if all white supremists were as giving as the Zionists? The world would be a better place for you and me, you just wait and see...Put a little love in your heart... (Feel free to break into song...)
In commemoration of the end of the First World War, the United States, as well as European countries, established Nov. 11 as Armistice Day. The fighting ended at 11am on November 11, 1918 (the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month). In 1921, the United States buried an "unknown
soldier" from the Great War in Arlington National Cemetary. It was done to honor all who had died in the conflict. England and France did the same, each burying an unknown soldier in a most honored place. In England, it was Westminster Abbey. In France, the Arc de Triomphe. All three burials occured on Nov.11.
By the time the United States had gotten involved in the Korean Conflict, much time had passed since World War I, so it was necessary to expand Armistice Day to include all American veterans. This happened in 1954, when Congress changed Armistice Day to Veterans Day; it was now a day to honor all American veterans, dead and alive (in contrast to Memorial Day, when we honor the dead).
When we reflect on the number of volunteers who fight on our behalf, it is quite amazing to think about those lives that have been given to protect us. From the Revolutionary War through the Vietnam Conflict, approximately 626,764 Americans have given their lives to protect and defend our freedom. Another 1.5 million have been wounded.
These soldiers defended the ideals that the United States stands for. These ideals include freedom, equality, individuality, the ability to better your life, and the right to work for positive social change.
Whether fighting the Nazi war machine, stopping the spread of Communism (it was not simply an imaginary threat), or fighting the War on Terrorism, the soldiers who have sacrificed so much for us deserve our recognition.
I am proud to say that many members of my family have been part of the military tradition of defending the United States. My grandfather, was part of the "Greatest Generation". He so desperately wanted to help serve his country that at first he attempted to enlist in the Air Force. They turned him down because he was color blind. He decided to turn to the part of the service that would accept him - the Army Infantry. He served as a doctor in the South Pacific. He was also a sharpshooter, but only had the option of either carrying his medical bag or his gun. He chose his medical bag. No doubt that many of those who made it home alive had my grandfather to thank.
In Europe at this same time, was the destruction of a third of the Jewish People. Of all the Jews in Europe, the Jews of Poland were the most decimated. One of the few Polish Jews who was able to survive the Nazi concentration camps was my cousin Bernard. After WWII, my great-aunt was able to bring him to the United States. He was so grateful to this country, he did not want to wait the five years to become a citizen. The fastest way to his goal was to join the military. He volunteered and was sent to Korea.
My father served in the Army during a relative time of quiet. He was active the last half of 1960, and spent another five and a half years in the reserves. And last but not least, one of my uncles just retired from the U.S. Navy. No doubt he has stories to tell, but I don't know them yet. Every veteran has stories, but it is up to us to ask to hear them.
Unfortunately in today's world, our veterans do not always get the honor that they deserve. It is time to recognize their accomplishments and the great sacrifices they have made, and continue to make, for this country.
What are American troops doing in Iraq? This is the question of the day. Even as one who supports our involvement in Iraq, I have to say that the current administration has not done a great job explaining to us why we are there and why there are continuous attacks on American and coalition troops. So I did a bit of research to find out the reasons.
What I found is that Iraq is the new front of the War on Terror. While we are still tracking down al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, some of those terrorists are coming to Iraq to join in the fight against the United States. Coalition troops are not fighting discontented Iraqis who don’t want us there, we are fighting an international group of terrorists. Polls show that 70 percent of Iraqis are happy that we liberated them from Saddam Hussein's regime (nationalreview.com/comment/lerner200310270835.asp). These are not the people that are attacking us.
How are these international terrorists getting into Iraq? There are four routes into the country. First is the Pakistan-Iran route, where they cross over the Pakistan border into Iran. With more than a thousand members they have organized themselves into two units: Jund al-Allah meaning “The Soldiers of Allah”, and al-Usad, “The Lions”. These groups have already caused the coalition much trouble, and are responsible for the attack on the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad and other attacks in Mosul.
The second route is through Syria. Approximately 1,000 al-Qaeda terrorists have traveled to Iraq in this way. The region between Syria and Iraq is known for their allegiance to Hussein and his family. Saddam had sent money to families and tribes living in this area to keep their loyalty strong. There are two million tribesmen in this area loyal to Saddam Hussein. On an interesting side-note, the terrorist groups of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, located in Syria, get their funding from Iran and in receive additional money for each al-Qaeda they train.
The final two routes are Saudi Arabia-Iran, and Saudi Arabia-Syria. Approximately 1,500-2,500 al-Qaeda have come the Saudi Arabia-Iran route, with an unknown amount through Syria by way of Saudia Arabia. (debka.com/article_print.php?aid=548).
These terrorists are not just coming for the fun of shooting American troops. They are being paid and paid well. They are being recruited from all over the Middle East and are being trained in the latest in the terrorist art of murder. At this point, most are coming from the countries of Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Al-Qaeda is offering these new recruits hundred of dollars a month which is 10 times the amount that they would be making back at home. (World Tribune, http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_terror_09_29.html)
It is now time to be clear about what is happening in Iraq. We won the war with Saddam Hussein. But we are not done. It isn’t time to go home. We need to be aware that this not a local war anymore. Terrorists from across the Middle East are all joining the fight, and we cannot ignore that this is part of the larger War on Terror. It’s time that the President realizes this and gives us the truth.
What do the states of Michigan, Indiana, Mississippi have in common? According to a report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies, these three states lost seats in the United States House of Representatives because of the huge number of illegal immigrants that have arrived on our shores.
How did this happen? First we need to look at how states get representation in the House of Representatives in the first place. The House of Representatives has a total of 435 seats that are given out to the fifty states. Each state gets at least one seat in the House. After that, it is dependent on the population of each state how many more seats they will receive. If the state’s population has gone up in the last 10 years, they may get another seat. If the state’s population has gone down, the state may lose a seat. (This is unlike the Senate, where it is not dependent on state population. Each state gets two senators, no more, no less).
The next question to tackle is how does the government know how much the population has shifted between states over the past ten years? The answer is the Census form that families fill out across the United States giving the Census Bureau an idea of who lives where and all sorts of other details. So based on this Census taken every ten years, the House seats are redistributed between states, with some gaining and some losing seats. Most of us are under the impression that illegal and legal residents (green card holders) are not counted toward the redistribution of House seats. We would be wrong.
Who cares if the illegal immigrants are counted in the Census and toward redistribution of those House seats? We should care, and especially as Michigan citizens. According to the United States Census Bureau there were near 7 million illegal aliens and 12 million other non-citizens that were counted in the 2000 Census. The Center for Immigration Studies looked at the impact of these non-citizens on state representation in the House of Representatives. They found that it was because of the non-citizen population that 9 seats ended up being redistributed between states. Where were these seats taken from and where were they given? The states that lost a seat were: Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin. Which states gained seats? California gained six seats while Florida, New York and Texas each gained one apiece.
What this means is that states such as Michigan, which is not known for its immigration, lost a House seat to states such as California, which is known for its huge immigrant population. This would not be such a big deal if the difference in population was because of a population shift of citizens between states. However, what is being shown here is that states like California are getting unequal representation because of their non-citizen populations. This is the main point of the problem. There is supposed to be equal representation in the House of Representatives between states, but it does not work when you throw non-citizens into the mix.
While these non-citizens do not gain anything by being counted in the Census, the citizens living in the same state are. They are gaining an unequal advantage of representation in the House. California residents have more representatives than Michigan in the House of Representatives only because of their non-citizens.
This also makes a difference when it comes time to choose a President. The President is chosen by the electoral college. The number of electors that each state has is the total number of Senators and Representatives they have in Congress. When a state has more representatives, they have more electors, which in turn gives that state a larger voice in who the next President will be.
To sum up, states that are low in non-citizens and general immigration, such as Michigan, are losing representation to those states that have a population of immigrants, like California. Since these non-citizens do not have the same rights as Americans in general it would make sense that they would not be counted in the representation in Congress. But they are, and Michigan is losing out.
To read the Center for Immigration Studies report:
www.cis.org
Imagine I invited you and a bunch of friends to a party where the focus was devil worship and we wore costumes while we burned people and animals alive. You may think that I was crazy to even suggest the idea. (At least I would hope so.) However in reality this is what we are celebrating every October 31st in the guise of the holiday of Halloween.
Where did Halloween originate? Originally it was a pagan Druid holiday called “The Vigil of Saman” or Samhain where they celebrated death. In 800 CE/AD the Roman Catholic Church decided to Christianize the pagan holiday by moving All Saints Day from May to November 1st. All Saints Day was a day where the saints that did not get their own special day on the calendar were honored by the Church and when Christians would pay respects to the dead. The new Christian holiday was supposed to be called “All Hallow’s Day”. The evening before became known as “All Hallow’s Eve” which eventually got shortened to Halloween. A problem occurred when this “Christianization” of the pagan holiday never took hold, and the pagan rituals became incorporated into mainstream society.
You may be asking what the big deal is. Today Halloween is a secular holiday celebrated by people of different faiths across the United States. This is true, but the question to ask yourself is if you want to be celebrating a holiday of death and pain throughout the centuries.
Where do the costumes fit into this picture? On the evening of October 31st, the Druids built a huge bonfire of sacred oak trees where they burned animals, crops and PEOPLE as sacrifices to their gods. During this ritual, they wore costumes of animal heads and skins. The Druids also looked for omens in the struggle of the victims being burned to death. They even sang and danced as part of the ritual. This was all in order to scare away the evil spirits. They also dressed up as evil spirits themselves to confuse the evil spirits that were supposed to be coming to attack them.
What I find most interesting is where the word “bonfire” comes from. You would never guess. It is a contraction of the words bone-fire, where bones were burned. There were two main festivals where the Druids burned humans and animals as sacrifices to their gods. One was the evening of April 30th, the other Halloween. The next day the Druids would examine the bones and try to prophesize the future.
In case you were not able to dress up and confuse the evil spirits, you could bribe them. If you treated them with food and made them happy, the spirit would not trick you - or cast an evil spell on you. Another example of the house to house blackmail would be when the Druids would ask for an offering to Saman and if the household was not forthcoming with the treat, the Druid would attack the homeowner with a sharp stick and castrate them. How’s that for fun? Trick or Treat!
There are a couple explanations dealing with the pumpkin. People used to hollow out pumpkins as well as turnips putting a candle inside to scare away the evil spirits. The pumpkin was also used as a symbol that the family inside was sympathetic to the Saman rituals and should not be attacked on the evening of Halloween.
It is no surprise to every cat owner that they should keep their pets indoors on Halloween night. Black cats especially were seen by the Druids as witches in disguise and burned. Black cats are still seen as evil and horrible things have been done in the past and even today black cats have been tortured in Satanic rituals. The Humane Society in many cities will not adopt out black cats around Halloween time with the fear that the cats may be hurt, tortured or killed. How disgusting.
Halloween is approaching next week and everybody is getting excited about getting dressed up, going to parties and having a good time. But while it may be a secular holiday, Halloween has a terrible, murderous history that we need to take into account before celebrating. Ask yourself - do you want to be celebrating the Holiday of Death and Murder?
After the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were both interested in hiring more Arabic speaking translators to help find any clues that may hint toward another attack. This is a great idea, the only problem is that these agencies may be hiring the wrong people.
We have been watching the debacle unfolding in Guantanamo Bay where the United States is holding Afghani prisoners, and using Arab translators to gain information about al-Qaeda. Up until now we have seen three different arrests of Arab translators working for the United States in Guantanamo.
Army Captain James Yee, an Islamic chaplain based in Guantanamo, is charged with disobeying a direct order for improperly handling classified information, but not espionage. Air Force Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, a translator in Guantanamo, has been charged with collecting more than 180 messages from prisoners with plans of delivering them to an enemy in Syria. Ahmed Mehalba, an Egyptian born US citizen, another translator, had improperly in his possession a list of suspected terrorists mentioned during interrogation sessions.
How is this happening? Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, made a good point when asked about these cases. “The presumption is that everyone at Guantanamo...went through some sort of background check. But it is baffling that a chaplain [Army Capt. Yee] who spent time in Syria, a country on the terrorist watch-list, and was trained by a group with ties to terrorism, would be allowed to serve as a cleric to a bunch of Taliban and al-Qaeda.” The question remains, does the United States military do a proper job when looking into the backgrounds of these translators? The answer is obviously no. [The Washington Times 10/13/03]
Another question that can and must be asked is: is the United States government looking into other avenues of recruiting Arabic translators? The answer to this question as well is no. The FBI’s New York office in October 2001 asked a Jewish social services organization to send them applications of Jews who were fluent in Arabic. Approximately 95 applications were sent. Some were asked back for a second and third interview, but none were hired. Many of these Jews who applied for the translating jobs had immigrated from Middle East countries, such as Israel, Syria, Egypt, and Sudan, and had background in translation, working for the Israeli media as well as the Israeli military.
The question remains. Why were none of these applicants hired for the job? One FBI source stated that the FBI was worried that the applicants were “too close to Israel” and may not be objective when translating the Arabic recordings and writings of terrorists. A question can be asked, is this a real reason for not hiring a Jew who could properly do the job. Perhaps an Army Chaplain who was trained by a terrorist group in Syria could do a better job.
Another angle to this Guantanamo case is the issue of possibly offending the Arab community in the U.S. The head of the FBI New York office invited a Muslim cleric to speak to agents about the peaceful side of Islam. FBI director Robert Mueller has done the same since after the attacks of 9/11. Are Jews not being hired in order not to offend Arab citizens? It would seem that the best translators should be hired regardless of their backgrounds as long as they were not a security risk.
The United States must not relax its standards when looking for translators. By just trying to fill the ranks without regard to serious background checks, we are only setting ourselves up for disaster. [World Net Daily 10/9/03]
Why are the Palestinian refugees so special? What makes them any different than any other refugee? Why do they have their own United Nations organization dedicated to their well being when no other refugee group does?
This past Tuesday, Wayne State University had Peter Hansen, Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) as a guest speaker. Hansen spoke about what his agency does and does not do as well as fielded questions from those who came to hear him. One of the problems that I had with his presentation was his idea that resettlement of the Palestinians into the surrounding countries was not a “natural solution”. Mr. Hansen went on to say that the Lebanese did not want the Palestinians, and the Jordanians did not want these refugees either. Hansen did not go further into the subject of Arab countries refusing to help. Yet, this is the crux of the problem.
Past UNRWA directors have made clear what the problems are with resettling the Palestinian refugees, some of whom are refugees by their own accord. In August 1958, Ralph Garroway said, “The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.” Dr. Elfan Rees who worked with refugee resettlement, assumed in 1959 that the Arab refugee problem should have been easy to solve considering the economic development of several Arab countries of the Middle East at the time. But he found that “the organized intransigence of the refugees and the calculated indifference of the Arab states concerned have brought all its [UNRWA’s] plans to nought.” We can see the truth of these statements since we still see no action on the part of the wealthy kings of the Middle East to resettle their brothers in their own countries.
When Mr. Hansen said that it was not a “natural solution” for people to be resettled in another country to continue their lives, has he taken into account the 900,000 Jews that were thrown out of their homes after living 2000 years in Arab countries? Between 1946-1962 these Jews had billions of dollars in property confiscated and were then made refugees. Israel took them in no questions asked.
The world has forgotten that most refugees are resettled outside of their original homes and do not return to the homes which they left. No one remembers the 3 million North Koreans who ran to South Korea. No one remembers the 1.6 million Vietnamese who have been integrated into the different countries that let them establish new lives. No one remembers the 12 million Germans that were expelled after World War II from the different European countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, who saw them as a threat to the country’s security. No one remembers that even today, 12,000 African refugees are being integrated into American society each year, possibly never returning to Africa.
No one remembers the population exchanges between countries that ended up promoting peace. Under the Turko-Bulgarian Convention of 1913, two and a half million people were forced to change countries. Muslim Bulgarians were resettled in Turkey and Christian Turks were transferred to Christian Bulgaria. In 1923, Christian Greece and Muslim Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne agreeing to exchange the 150,000 Christian Greeks living in Turkey, and the 388,000 Muslim Turks living in Greece. They did this in order not to go to war again and there has been no bloodshed since. In the 1940s, there was an enormous population exchange with the creation of Pakistan. 8,500,000 Hindus left Pakistan for India, while 6,500,000 Muslims left India for Pakistan. While there is still conflict in that region, imagine the amount of violence that would be occurring today if the population exchange had not been carried through.
While resettlement is not a “natural solution” for Mr. Hansen, it may be one to be considered to end this conflict. Israel has accepted the 900,000 Jews thrown out of the Arab countries. It is time for the Arab countries to accept their brothers as well.
This article was never published by The South End due to the amount of responses from the article published before this one. This was written while I was in Israel July 27, 2003.
It is only in Israel that I am lucky enough to travel in a bulletproof bus. This week I went to visit a good friend and her very cute children in the city of Beitar. This trip took me into the Arab occupied territory of Judea/Samaria (aka West Bank).
I decided not to take my car into the occupied territories because I was afraid that my rental car would not be able to make the trip due to unforseen circumstances ie. molotov cocktails, snipers, and other "problems". Instead I took the bulletproof bus.
On my 15 minute trip out of Jerusalem to Beitar I thought about being under "occupation". Occupation is another word for being held hostage. Jews living here in Israel are being held hostage by the Arabs living in this country. We are
afraid to ride the buses, afraid to go shopping, and afraid to drive the roads.
I have been doing a lot of traveling while here in Israel. When I first arrived, I was getting directions to a outlying suburb of Jerusalem when the woman giving me directions gave me a shocker. She said to make sure not to miss my exit
because I would end up in the Arab city of Ramallah. This means sure death.
As I was driving that evening I made sure to pay attention to all the signs pointing me to that particular suburb, I was scared to miss my exit. I was scared to be murdered because I am Jewish.
We saw the blood frenzy several years ago when two Jews made a wrong turn into Ramallah. The Arab police there picked them up and took them to the police station supposedly for their own safety. News traveled quickly and the entire city
showed up at the station. The police did not bother doing their human duty - to protect innocent lives. They instead beat the two Jews to death, then threw their bodies out the window to the crowd outside. There was almost nothing left to identify the bodies with when the Arabs later returned the bodies to Israel. Instead we see the inhumanity of it all when one of the Jews cellphones rang while all this was happening. One of the murderers answered the phone and found that it was the wife of one of the Jews. He told her that he was busy murdering her husband. Occupation means that you cannot travel your own land for fear of making the wrong turn on the highway. I cannot assume anything different if I should G-d forbid make a wrong turn.
On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that Arabs can walk freely in any city in Israel without a worry of being murdered in the street. Every day I see Arabs going anywhere they want in any city going along their business. They are
still allowed to ride the buses, still allowed to go shopping and drive the roads. There have been no instances of Jews lynching Arabs like was done to the Jews in Ramallah. Who is under "occupation" here?
How did we come to such a situation here in Israel? Israel won a defensive war against her Arabs neighbors in 1967, when they announced to the world that they were going to drive her into the sea. In the span of a week, Israel won the eastern half of Jerusalem as well as Judea and Samaria. There has been no other country that hands back the land that it wins in war. Especially not back to the enemies that tried to destroy her in the first place. Especially if doing such a thing would make your country an indefensible 9 miles wide.
As a result of winning this war, Israel has inherited the Arabs living in these areas. Of course none of these Arabs wanted their own state when they were occupied by Jordan before 1967. Only when under Jewish control does it become
important. We can see Arab priorities clearly here. Arab statehood becomes a must when it comes to displacing the Jewish identity with the Land of Israel and not before.
I am glad that I have come to visit in the Land of Israel. It is only here that I can understand what it means to be a people under "occupation".
America is founded on the principles of equality, tolerance and acceptance of others with different ideas and religions than our own. Schools have whole curriculums based on “diversity” and “cultural awareness”. We look for common aspirations between groups of people in order to build our communities and better ourselves and our families. We assume that everyone around the world is also working toward these same goals of equality, tolerance and acceptance. We are wrong.
Islamic fundamentalists are not interested in any of these goals and certainly do not promote them. We need to understand their world view in order to see how it was possible for the tragedy of 9/11 to occur.
Fundamentalist Muslims believe that the Jews received a Revelation from God, the Torah, but then corrupted that Revelation. Christians received a Revelation, the New Testament, but corrupted their book too. According to them, the Koran is the final, uncorrupted word of God.
To these Muslims, the world is divided into two parts. The first part is the Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. This is the area that, according to the Koran, is under Muslim rule. The second part is called Dar al-Harb, the House of War. This refers to the area of the world that is under non-Muslim control. Between these two parts there will always be a perpetual state of war. They believe that this will continue until the non-Muslims either accept Islam, or submit to being second class citizens to Muslim rulers.
This state of war can be seen around the world where fundamentalist Muslim are only interested in recreating the world in their image. In Indonesia, the fundamentalist Muslims are fighting the Christians. The mastermind of the Bali bombings shouted out in court, “We are ready to win the crusade against Christians! We will win!” Indonesian police also found church service schedules in raids on terror organizations indicating their interest in murdering Christians during prayer. (www.domini.org/openbook/ind20030820.htm).
In India, the fundamentalist Muslims are fighting the Hindus. In February 2, 2001, one of these Muslims, Shri Gopal Godse, is quoted as saying, “Islam is the mission of spreading Arabic culture by killing original Hindu culture” (www.hinduunity.org/indexold.html). Thousands have been killed.
In addition to the suicide bombings murdering and maiming of hundreds of Jewish men, women and children in Israel, Christians have an additional problem. An example of their problem is obvious with the body of the Muslim who converted to Christianity. His body had been chopped into four parts and was returned to his family as a warning to other possible converts (www.domini.org/openbook/pal20030729.htm).
In Sudan, for the past twenty years, Muslims in the north have been fighting to control non-Muslims in the south. Over a million non-Muslims have been murdered. This number doesn’t include the thousands of kidnapped and enslaved non-Muslims in the north.
Until the late 1990s there was dictatorial rule in Nigeria and fundamentalist Islam was held under control. Now there are thousands of Christians killed trying to resist fundamentalist Islam.
In Egypt, ten percent of the population are Coptic-Christians. These Christians live in constant fear since the Egyptian government lifted restrictions on fundamentalist Islam. Thousands of Christians have been murdered.
In Australia, concerns are being raised about possible al-Qaeda connections with the Islamic Youth Movement in Sydney (www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s876582.htm). In the Philippines, the fundamentalist Muslims are a small minority, but are attempting to move their Christian neighbors from their homes. This includes murder to accomplish their goals. In the Balkans, when the fundamentalist Muslims are in power, they persecute the Christian population. Saudi Arabia outlaws the practice of any other religion except for Islam. Anyone caught can be beaten and thrown into jail. Even in China, fundamentalist Muslims are attempting to disrupt the political system (www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1993/10/17_1.html).
In can be seen from these examples that it does not matter to the Islamic fundamentalists what religion you are or where you live. The rest of the world knows this. It is only now after the attacks of 9/11 that the United States has learned.
If not all Muslims are fundamentalist, where are the condemnations of murder by the moderate and liberal Muslims? If religious persecution of other religions is not acceptable to Islam why hasn’t the Islamic leadership and communities come out against such atrocities which occur daily across the world? Are they afraid that they will be targeted and removed from power? Many times, these condemnations of murder are qualified. “Of course we are against the attack on 9/11, however, it is because of this that or the other thing that that country did.” It is the “yes-but” excuse. There is a denial of responsibility for their co-religionists actions. The world is waiting to hear from a moderate Muslim.
