Discussing muslim immigration, feckless politicians, historical record on jihad against the West etc.
ISIS Statement Celebrating Paris Jihad Carnage: A Mainstream, Contemporary Gloss on Koran 59:2, the ISIS Statement’s “Preamble”
The ghoulish, celebratory pronouncement by ISIS in the wake of the jihad carnage (at least 129 murdered, 99 critically wounded in Paris, and 352 others wounded) “A Statement on the Blessed Onslaught in Paris against the Crusader Nation of France,” opens with Koran 59:2. The full statement is reproduced below, preceded by a modern gloss of this verse, which places the ISIS statement in its appropriate Islamic context, i.e., of jihad terror.
Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1886-1949) was a renowned theologian, writer, orator, and politician, with particular expertise in the study and interpretation of the Koran, and the traditions of Muhammad, or hadith. Usmani’s magnum opus was his Koranic commentary, Tafsir-e-Usmani, which drew upon some 14 prior commentaries. What follows is the crux of Usmani’s exegesis—a consensus, mainstream Islamic interpretation—which demonstrates ISIS invoked Koran 59:2 in a manner concordant with this authoritative gloss.
Seeing goods and materials, their [the Jews, specifically; non-Muslim “infidels” more broadly] strong fortresses and militant manners you could not think they would flee so soon and surrender so easily, nor could the Jews calculate that a handful of Muslims would reduce them to great straits. They were in this dreamland that the Muslims would not dare to come to their fortresses—(those Muslims upon whom was the hand of Allah). In other words they saw it very well that no power could defend them against the order of Allah. Upon the order of Allah came from whence they imagined not, i.e., from the interior of their hearts, i.e., Allah cast terror into their hearts and established the power of the unequipped Muslims, having no spectacular material resources, upon the powerful enemy. One onside they were distressed and terrified at the sudden murder of their [the Jews] chief Ka’ab ibn Ashraf [whom Islam’s prophet Muhammad ordered assassinated], now this sudden assault of the Muslims lost their remaining senses.
Out of greed, anger and wrathful emotions they [the Jews] began to tear down the beams and planks of their houses, so that they could carry as much as they could and leave nothing for the Muslims. In this work, the Muslims also helped them. On one side they dilapidated; on the other side the Muslims dilapidated, and if observed honestly, the dilapidation at the hands of the Muslims was the result of their own treacheries and breaking of covenants. For the wise men possessed of discernment, there is an ample lesson in this event. Allah has clearly showed what was the result of unbelief, wrong, mischief and breach of contract, and that mere putting trust in external causes, heedless of Allah’s power, is not the work of a wise man.
Hitler had an affinity for Islam, deeming christianity as too effeminate.
Andy Bostom is the go-to guy on anything related to Islamic antisemitism, and he’s become an excellent voice/expert on Iran, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of J’lem during the 30’s and 40’s and a host of other related issues.
Was Netanyahu Right That Islam Changed Nazism and Not Vice-Versa?
During a recent speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appropriately decried the “apologetics” which have minimized the role played by ex-Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin el-Husseini (1895-1974) — founder of the modern Palestinian Muslim movement — in fomenting genocidal Islamic Jew-hatred. Netanyahu made these simple, irrefragable points, demonstrating how from the 1920s through (in particular) the World War II era:
… the father of the Palestinians at that time, with no [Jewish] state and no so-called “occupation,” no territories and no settlements, already sought, through systematic incitement, to annihilate the Jews. Regrettably, Hajj Amin el-Husseini is still a venerated figure in Palestinian society, he appears in study books and is exalted as the father of the nation, and this incitement that began then, incitement to kill Jews, continues.
As I noted in what was the first full English translation and detailed analysis (here, here) of Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s 1937 fatwa on the Jews — which re-affirms canonical Islam’s Jew-hating motifs used to foment murderous violence against them by Muhammad himself, since the advent of Islam, till now — this seminal proclamation of incitement by the “Godfather” of the Palestinian Muslim movement was pure Islamic dogma devoid of any themes from the writings of Nazi racial theorists, epitomized by Johan (aka, Johann, Johannes) von Leers. (See Foreword by Julian Huxley,History on a Racial Basis, an abridged translation ofGeschichte auf Rassicher Grundlage, London, 1936.)
Leers is a fascinating case study. By any objective standard, his career trajectory — as a favored contributor in Goebbels’s propaganda ministry, to his eventual adoption of Islam (as Omar Amin von Leers) while working as an anti-Western and anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist propagandist under Nasser’s regime from the mid-1950s until his death in 1965 — represents the “Islamification of Nazism,” rather than a “Nazification of Islam.” (The discussion which follows is drawn from, and referenced in, my The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, pp. 168-169, 204-205, 619-625; and Sharia Versus Freedom, Amherst, N.Y., 2012, pp. 252-259, 610-614.)
None of the important data summarized below have been described by Jeffrey Herf, an avatar of the “Nazification of Islam” hypothesis. In his The Jewish Enemy — Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 180–81, Herf included a very limited English translation extract of von Leers’ conclusions from the 1942 essay “Judentum und Islam als Gegensatze” (in Die Judenfrage in Politik, Recht, and Wirtschaft 6, no. 24, December 24, 1942): 275–78), whose fully annotated translation (as “Judaism and Islam as Opposites”) I provided in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (pp. 619-625). Herf even failed to mention von Leers’ subsequent conversion to Islam, and was also oblivious to the Nazi author’s thorough grounding in, and accurate representation of, the pious Muslim sources (i.e., Koran, hadith, and sira). This negationist approach of German-fluent “Nazification of Islam” historians such as Herf compounds their failure to deal with the quintessential, canonical Islamic motifs of el-Husseini’s 1937 Islamic fatwa—available in German since 1938—in an informed, intellectually honest manner.
Upon his arrival in Egypt in 1956, it was Hajj Amin el-Husseini who oversaw von Leers’ formal conversion to Islam, and remained one of his confidants. Leers described the origins of the Muslim “forename” Omar Amin, which he adopted as part of his conversion to Islam in a November, 1957 letter to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson:
I myself have embraced Islam and accepted the new forename Omar Amin, Omar according to the great Caliph Omar who was a grim enemy of the Jews, Amin in honor of my friend Hajj Amin el Husseini, the Grand Mufti.
Islam just isn’t kosher.
Not surprising that hard core Leftists (this one of the racist ultra-nationalist variety) would gravitate to Islam. Totalitarians think alike.
“Judaism and Islam as Opposites,” a 1942 essay by Nazi convert to Islam, Johannes ‘Omar Amin’ von Leers, (d. 1965)
Readers are referred to my previous blog for additional background, on Johannes “Omar Amin” von Leers. There is a reference in Leers’ 1942 essay, translated below, to Muhammad Sabri’s “Islam, Judentum, und Bolschewismus.” This 1938 work by Sabri included the 1937 “fatwa” on the Jews by Leers’ mentor, and eventual Muslim namesake, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, which I have analyzed at length (published here; and as a free pdf here).
Johannes von Leers, “Judentum und Islam als Gegensatze,” Die Judenfrage in Politik, Recht, and Wirtschaft 6, no. 24 (December 24, 1942): 275–78; translated by Steven Rendall. Reproduced from my The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, 2008, pp. 619-625.
It is of some interest to read Jewish historians from time to time, not because we can find truth in them, but in order to gain insight into the psychology of Jews. Here we are concerned with one such case that is highly unique—whenever the Jews happen to discuss Muhammad and Islam, they are exceptionally hostile, indeed hateful. For example, Simon Dubnow, in his General History of the Jewish People (Berlin, 3: 282 ff.)  describes Muhammad, but does not fail to note that he was not able to read, and then adds the following:
Thus in the mind of this half-Bedouin there ripened the idea of monotheism, which in him became a fiery passion that drove him to engage in a “holy war” in which any means was permissible. For Muhammad, the knowledge of God was in no way connected with the sublime ethical consciousness that makes the ethical monotheism of the biblical prophets and the one-sided evangelical doctrine of “not of this world” so attractive. The life of Muhammad reveals neither an enchanting personality nor an embodiment of the highest ethical principles capable, even more than the abstract idea, of captivating pious souls. The life of the “Emissary of Allah” and the Qur’an itself are full of examples of how the founder of a religion should not speak and behave. Behind the mask of a prophet we find only too often the eye of a half-savage; the Prophet’s inspiration is overshadowed by the crude passion of the Bedouin who ruthlessly murders in war and does not hesitate to carry off the wives or daughters of the men he murders in order to add them to his harem. All these character traits of Muhammad are particularly clear in his behavior with regard to Jews in Arabia.
This is not historical writing, but rather a campaign of hatred and libel.  First of all, Muhammad was neither a Bedouin nor a half-Bedouin; instead, he was a member of the old family of urban nobility in Mecca, the Quraysh, so the Jewish critic Dubnow obviously has not read the Qur’an, since he makes such an egregious error. But one thing this passage surely betrays—the Jews’ mortal hatred, fourteen hundred years later, for the man who gave birth to the most recent and, in many respects, the most successful of the world religions. The clash between Muhammad and Jewry is not well known, but is actually very interesting. Even before Emperor Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) there were already a few Jews in Arabia, and after the destruction of Jerusalem large groups emigrated to Arabia, settled in Arabian cities, and there carried on active agitation on behalf of Judaism. The three tribes, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza, took up residence especially in the city of Yathrib, while other Jews settled in Khaybar, Fadak, Taima, and Wadi-el-Kura—cities that were in fact fully under their control. There were also Jewish groups in southern Arabia, as far south as Aden. The Jews consciously pursued their mission; if many Jewish tribes had the same particularist spirit, the same tribal feuds, and the same customs of blood revenge as the Arabs, this was frequently not because the Jews were becoming Arabized, but on the contrary because in these Jewish tribes there were many converted Arabs. However, the headquarters of the area taken over by the Jews was Yathrib, from which emanated Jewish agitation; there, the three previously mentioned Jewish tribes had intervened in the conflicts between the two largest Arab tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj (sometimes referred to collectively as Banu Qayla),  which they incited against each other and in this way took control over the city. This penetration was achieved by means of economic activity, settlement, and trade, but above all by the Jews’ spiritual influence. To be sure, Christian influences from Byzantium and Abyssinia were also involved, but of the foreign religious creeds Judaism was the most widespread, active, and successful.
The Jews later sought to prove how much Islam had borrowed from Judaism. It is characteristic of Judaism’s vanity that it always sees itself as the origin of all new knowledge. In reality some external respects in which Islam and Judaism agree were borrowed not from Judaism but rather from ancient Oriental folk customs.
All the hub-bub over Israeli PM’s reference to the Mufti of J’lem during the Mandate period of Palestine, being a major influence on Adolf Hitler in getting rid of the Jews, has caused lots of finger pointing and recriminations within the Jewish community. Yes we know that Adolf Hitler designed and carried out the mass murder of European Jewry, with over 6 million Jews being exterminated in the death camps of national socialism.
That still does not remove the influence and guilt over these death by the islamonazi, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, who prodded and cajoled (as if they ever really needed prodding and cajoling) the Nazis to murder Jews. He even was influential in sealing of escape routes to the Middle East as well as sealing off the fates of Jewish children.
The man was a monster, an Islamic adherent monster, who escaped justice after WWII, the foremost Muslim/Islamic leader in the Middle East who was in lock step with the Nazis in the Final Solution of not only European Jewry, but also the Jews of the Levant and Maghreb if the Nazis proved victorious over the Allied forces.
So lets give Bibi some credit here, he finally raised the leading figure of Arab/Muslim (totally sharia compliant) Jew hatred and extermination. I find myself thanking Netanyahu more than I question the time line of El-Hussieni’s influence peddling.
Palestinian Muslims: El-Husseini’s—And Muhammad’s—Willing Jew Executioners
Articles | | Anti-Semitism & National Security, Israel & the Middle East
During a speech yesterday (10/20/15) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appropriately decried the “apologetics” which have minimized the role played by ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin el-Husseini (1895-1974)—founder of the modern Palestinian Muslim movement—in fomenting genocidal Islamic Jew-hatred. Netanyahu made these simple, irrefragable points,demonstrating how from the 1920s through (in particular) the World War II era,
the father of the Palestinians at that time, with no [Jewish] state and no so-called “occupation,” no territories and no settlements, already sought, through systematic incitement, to annihilate the Jews. Regrettably, Hajj Amin el-Husseini is still a venerated figure in Palestinian society, he appears in study books and is exalted as the father of the nation, and this incitement that began then, incitement to kill Jews, continues.
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The Congressional record contains astatement of support from New York Rep. Walter Chandler which includes an observation, about “Turkish and Arab agitators . . . preaching a kind of holy war [jihad] against . . . the Jews” of Palestine. During this same era within Palestine, a strong Arab Muslim irredentist current—epitomized by Hajj Amin el-Husseini—promulgated the forcible restoration of sharia-mandated dhimmitude for Jews via jihad. Indeed, two years before he orchestrated the murderous anti-Jewish riots of 1920, that is, in 1918, Hajj Amin el-Husseini stated plainly to a Jewish coworker (at the Jerusalem Governorate), I. A. Abbady, “This was and will remain an Arab land . . . the Zionists will be massacred to the last man. . . . Nothing but the sword will decide the future of this country.”
Despite his role in fomenting the1920 pogroms against Palestinian Jews, el-Husseini was pardoned and subsequently appointed mufti of Jerusalem by the British high commissioner, in May 1921, a title he retained, following the Ottoman practice, for the remainder of his life. Throughout his public career, the mufti relied upon traditional Koranic anti-Jewish motifs to arouse the Arab street. For example, during the incitement which led to the 1929 Arab revolt in Palestine, he called for combating and slaughtering “the Jews.” not merely Zionists. In fact, most of the Jewish victims of the 1929 Arab revolt were Jews from the centuries-old dhimmi communities (for example, in Hebron), as opposed to recent settlers identified with the Zionist movement.
The mufti remained unrelenting in his espousal of a virulent, canonical Islamic Jew-hatred as the focal tenet of his ideology, before, during, and in the aftermath of World War II, and the creation of the State of Israel. He was also a committed supporter of global jihad movements,urging a “full struggle” against the Hindus of India (as well as the Jews of Israel) before delegates at the February 1951 World Muslim Congress: “We shall meet next with sword in hand on the soil of either Kashmir or Palestine.” Declassified intelligence documents from 1942, 1947, 1952, and 1954 confirm the mufti’s own Caliphate desires in repeated references from contexts as diverse as Turkey, Egypt, Jerusalem, and Pakistan, and also include discussions of major Islamic conferences dominated by the mufti, which were attended by a broad spectrum of Muslim leaders literally representing the entire Islamic world (including Shia leaders from Iran), that is, in Karachi from February 16–19, 1952, and Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem, December 3–9, 1953.
During 1938, a booklet Muhammad Sabri edited, Islam, Judentum, Bolschewismus (Islam, Jewry, Bolshevism), was published in Berlin by Junker-Duennhaupt [Dünnhaupt]. Sabri’s booklet included Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s 1937 declaration—also deemed by some as a “fatwa” (an Islamic religious ruling)—appealing to the worldwide Muslim umma. El-Husseini’s declaration was extracted and reprinted, separately, by the Nazi regime as Islam und Judentum(Islam and Jewry), and distributed to Muslim SS units in Bosnia, Croatia, and the Soviet Union. As I detailed in a 2103 monograph, which provided, and riveted upon, the first full English translation of el-Husseini’s 1937 “religious edict” (“fatwa’) about the Jews (available here; and as a free pdf here), the former Mufti of Jerusalem exclusively invoked traditionalist Islamic themes, familiar to the Muslim masses, to incite their annihilationist Islamic Jew-hatred. Reiterating foundational Jew-hating motifs from the Koran itself, and embodied by the inflammatory words and murderous actions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (in the “hadith” or traditions, and earliest pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad), el-Husseini’s traditional Islamic Jew-hatred has remained a staple of contemporary Palestinian Muslim religious discourse, through the present.
Although a complete understanding of el-Husseini’s 1937 arguments requires a careful reading of all the evidence adduced in my original essay, below is the crux of the analysis.
Just before his concluding admonition for a jihad to annihilate the Jewish community of historical Palestine, Hajj Amin el-Husseini recapitulates the dominant thematic narrative, woven together from a myriad of specific, canonical Islamic motifs, throughout the 1937 proclamation:
[T]he Arabs have learned best how they really are, that is, as they [the Jews] are described in the Koran and in the sacred scriptures… The verses from the Koran and hadith prove to you that the Jews have been the bitterest enemies of Islam and continue to try to destroy it.
What can be readily gleaned from a careful, objective reading of el-Husseini’s proclamation was there were no concrete, substantive references to any non-Islamic sources of antisemitism. This absence of references contrasted starkly with the numerous and specific antisemitic motifs from Islam’s canonical texts—the Koran (consistent with its gloss in authoritative Koranic commentaries), hadith, and sira—which el-Husseini’s declaration invoked continuously, from opening to closing.
Islam = genocide of Jews and anything else non-Islamic
Palestinian Clerics, Citing Muhammad’s Murderous Example, Call for Jihad Genocide of the Jews
[Via MEMRI. A ghoulish picture, and equally ghoulish accompanying commentary, posted on Facebook, depicting the Israeli Jewish victim of one stabbing attack, while the knife was still protruding from the back of his neck, the caption declaring: “Stabbing operation. The free men of Al-Aqsa. The Intifada has started. The [West] Bank is carrying out resistance.There is nothing greater than a knife penetrating the heads of the Jews.”]
The ongoing wave of murderous, knife-wielding jihad terror attacks by Palestinian Muslims against Israeli Jews has been punctuated by two ghoulish, closely related phenomena of incitement: the launching of social media hashtags such as “Poison the Knife Before You Stab,” or “Slaughtering the Jews,” and the repetition by Palestinian Muslim clerics [here; here] of Islam’s canonical Jew-hating motifs, sanctioning a jihad genocide of Israeli Jews. Notwithstanding the shocking barbarity of such vox populi social media hashtags, the Muslim clerical imprimatur given to these wanton killings of Jews is far more insidious, and pathognomonic of a mainstream Islamic religio-political depravity willfully ignored by media, religious, and political leaders, worldwide.
Sheikh Muhammad Abu Sa’da, in a sermon delivered at the Abdallah Azzam Mosque, Gaza, (posted on the Internet on October 3, 2015), invoked a Koranic epithet for Jews(5:60) while calling for Palestinian Muslims to wage a genocidal jihad against “the brothers of apes and pigs (5:60),” and liquidate the Jewish State.
Andy Bostom has been at the forefront in debunking the myth of a moderate Iranian leadership opposition (the Solyent Green Movement) which the West can rally behind. There is in reality only hardline Shiite islam 101’ers on both sides of the Iranian political aisle who hate the Jews.
NOTE: Trying to pick a moderate in today’s Iranian politics, is like trying to find ”moderates” within the socialist Nationalist & Internationalist alliance of the 30’s.
Rafsanjani, Iran’s Alleged Longstanding “Moderate” Voice: “Alien” Israel “Will be Wiped Off the Map.”
Long touted as an Iranian leadership voice of pragmatism, and even “moderation,” former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, now head of the country’s Expediency Discernment Council, is an enduring friend of current “moderate” President Rouhani. Yesterday, (Monday, July 6, 2015), Mr. Rafsanjani gave a revealing interview insisting rather immoderately that Israel’s very existence was parlous, indeed, reiterating one of Iran’s boilerplate metaphors for the Jewish State’s destruction, better known to have been utteredby the “hardline” former President Ahmadinejad:
Eventually one day this alien forged existence that has been forced into the body of an ancient nation and an historical region will be wiped off the map.
Rafsanjani also opined to his interviewer that,
…even Tel Aviv knows well that Iran is not after acquiring nuclear weapons…the Zionists wish to keep Iran engaged in problems permanently, knowing that the Islamic Republic’s political, economic, cultural and propagation status will all improve after such an agreement.
The late intrepid Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman was killed this past January, 2015 because of his tireless investigations of Iran’s culpability for the 1992 and 1994 Buenos Aires bombings, which targeted the Israeli embassy, and Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA), respectively, murdering 114 people between the two attacks. According to a 2006 indictment by the Investigations Unit of the Office of then Attorney General of Argentina, Nisman, the ultimate decision to bomb the AMIA center was not only made by Iran’s “Supreme-Leader”, Theocrat Ayatollah Khamenei, and but also Iran’s “moderate” President at the time, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Moreover, Nisman argued that the “determining factor” which motivated these attacks, was
the Argentine government’s unilateral decision to terminate the nuclear materials and technology supply agreements that had been concluded some years previously between Argentina and Iran…[A]t this period the Iranian government felt that it was crucial for Iran to develop its nuclear capacities.
Nisman’s 2006 report averred there was there was “no doubt” that
Rafsanjani fully supported the ideological principles that were promulgated beginning in 1979, including the endorsement of the use of terrorist methods as an alternative and valid adjunct to classic diplomacy as a foreign policy tool.
Eyewitness testimony from Iranian dissidents elucidated how Iran’s expansionist Shiite jihadism remained Rafsanjani’s unwavering goal, to be achieved by jihad terror, and “martyrdom operations” directed at Israel, and the U.S.
Thanks to Andy for all that he does.
1981 Nobel Laureate Elias Canetti’s Chapter Title, from “Crowds and Power”—“Islam as a Religion of War”
Elias Canetti (1905-1994) was a German-language novelist, playwright, and non-fiction writer, of Sephardic Jewish descent. Canetti—whose works examined the emotions of crowds, the predicament of individuals at odds with their surrounding society, and the psychopathology of power—was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1981, “for writings marked by a broad outlook, a wealth of ideas and artistic power.”
The faithful and the unbelieving are fated to be separate for ever and to fight each other…[as] a sacred duty and thus, though in a less comprehensive form, the double crowd of the Last Judgment is prefigured in every earthly battle.
We need desperately honest, knowledgeable voices giving assessments on key issues of the day, not boneheaded pablum ad infinitum.
Why Fox News Must Make Rare Guest Three Star Gen Dan Bolger A Regular Commentator on the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars
General Daniel P. Bolger is a History Professor at North Carolina State University, and retired Three Star General, who served from 2005-2013, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I put General Bolger’s sagacious, experience-based written observations in the context of the overall failure, if much ballyhooed transient “success,” of the 2007 U.S. “troop surge” in Iraq, in a May 29, 2015 PJ Media essay, “Jihad, the Failed ‘Surge,’ and the Abandonment of Iraq’s Non-Muslim Minorities”. (That essential background can be read here).
This past November, 2014, General Bolger had a brief appearance with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, in conjunction with the initial release of his critical (including a remarkably candid personal mea culpa) analysis, “Why We Lost—A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars”.
Gen.Bolger on with FOX’s Ted Baxter
I would also add to the list of questions, have you ever read any of Dr.Andrew Bostom’s books, most notably, The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism,
‘‘A comprehensive, meticulously documented collection of scholarly articles presents indisputable evidence that a readily discernible, uniquely Islamic antisemitism -a specific Muslim hatred of Jews- has been expressed continuously since the advent of Islam. Debunking the conventional wisdom, which continues to assert that Muslim animosity toward Jews is entirely a 20th-century phenomenon fueled mainly by the protracted Arab-Israeli conflict, leading scholars provide example after example of antisemitic motifs in Muslim documents reaching back to the beginnings of Islam. The contributors show that the Koran itself is a significant source of hostility toward Jews, as well as other foundational Muslim texts including the hadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by pious Muslim transmitters) and the sira (the earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad).
SOME QUESTIONS FOR JEFFREY GOLDBERG
Jeffrey Goldberg is a senior American journalist who recently interviewed US President Barack Obama for the Atlantic Monthly.1 He has interviewed Obama in the past, and in this latest interview, Goldberg brought up the Iran nuclear deal and ISIS, and also asked Obama for his opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.2
In their discussion of the conflict, Goldberg did not challenge Obama on his use of double standards against Israel and his other observations of extreme bias. The president expresses what he calls “tough love for Israel”, while remaining silent about the major Islamo-Nazism in Palestinian society. In light of Obama’s tilted perspective, I have prepared a few questions for Goldberg should he have the occasion to conduct a future interview with Obama and should he decide to become a more objective journalist.
Goldberg could start, for instance, by asking Obama: “Mr. President, when I interviewed you in May 2015, you spoke about how we should be ‘repairing the world.’ Yet, if we look at the world in its current state and compare it to how matters stood were when your presidency began in 2009, it seems that the main issue at hand should be how to prevent the world from going further downhill.
“Relations between the West and Russia were much better when your presidency started than they are today. The Middle East is in far greater chaos today than it was in 2009. Genocidal movements in the Muslim world have greatly expanded since 2009. What are you doing about preventing the world from becoming even more chaotic instead of fantasizing about repairing it?”
Goldberg could then ask, “You made a variety of statements about Israel having to live up to Jewish values, with some of those values largely invented by yourself. What makes you an authority to speak on Jewish values? Why should anyone believe that you have more than a superficial and distorted understanding of them?
“In the past, you have even been known to radically misrepresent Islam when you declared that ISIS is not Islamic.3 The Pew Foundation investigated support for al-Qaeda in various countries while Bin Laden was alive. There was wide backing for al-Qaeda in a variety of Muslim societies in 2014. Among Palestinians it was around 25%.4
“Al Jazeera, the international TV station of Qatar – a country which opposes ISIS — asked its Arab viewers in May 2015 whether or not they agreed with the values of ISIS. Of the more than 50,000 who replied, 81% agreed with ISIS.5 Even if it were 10% that would have been shocking. A variety of Muslim theologians across the Muslim world agree that ISIS’s views are a legitimate form of Islam.6 Mr. President, what makes you an authority on Islamic values to such an extent that you may belittle the conclusions of all these Muslim people regarding Islam and what it represents?
“You state that Israel should take risks to achieve a two-state solution. The late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took irresponsible risks when he chose to have Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. He was warned by Israeli experts that Hamas or Al Qaeda would take over the area. This is exactly what happened. Israel has been under violent attack from Gaza for years. Yet Israel is frequently criticized by the West when it defends itself against Hamas, an Islamo-Nazi movement that clearly states in its charter and elsewhere that it wants to exterminate the Jews.7 Mr. Netanyahu says that ceding additional territory would ultimately lead to having it taken over by Islamic terrorists. Netanyahu says this in view of the current Middle East reality,8 and there are strong indications that he is right.”
Goldberg could continue: “Hamas came out as the largest Palestinian party, gaining the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament during the only democratic elections that have ever been held in the Palestinian territories – those of 2006.9 Hamas clearly states its aim of exterminating the Jews. Its top representatives have repeated this attitude publicly during Israel’s 2014 Protective Edge campaign.10 Recent polls show that if elections were to be held at present, Palestinians would prefer Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah over the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas.11 Why do you claim that Mr. Netanyahu errs in saying that any territory Israel would cede would fall in the hands of Islamic terrorists and why would you want him to take this risk?
Goldberg’s next question could be, “During the interview, you criticized the existence of Israeli checkpoints. You know that these checkpoints were installed in order to reduce the number of Israelis being murdered by Palestinians. Isn’t your approach an example of an increasingly frequent phenomenon, that of progressives indirectly supporting murderers, for instance by remaining silent about Palestinian Islamo-Nazism?”
A further question to Obama could be, “You speak of avoiding double standards. You criticize Israel out of your so-called attitude of ‘tough love’. Yet you remain silent about the widespread Palestinian Islamo-Nazism and the many crimes of Islam, a religion from which far more criminality emerges than from any other religion. You are also silent regarding the frequent, radical, anti-Semitic hatred emerging from large parts of the Muslim world.”
The US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism defines double standards as acts of anti-Semitism.12 Why should your use of extreme double standards regarding Israel not be considered acts of anti-Semitism?”
Another question: “You confessed your love for the Jewish people. Why, then, did you call the murder of Jews in the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris ‘random attacks’ while they were so clearly anti-Semitic ones?”13
And finally, “In your speech in the Adas Israel Synagogue in Washington, D.C., given a few days after our interview, all you said was that the “Palestinians aren’t the easiest of partners.”14 As their biggest party is the Islamo-Nazi Hamas, this remark was a caricature of reality. Why do you consider that your flagrant understatement regarding Hamas, while heavily criticizing Israel, is not yet another expression of extreme double standards?
If Mr. Goldberg requires further clarification on the issues raised above, I’ll be happy to provide it.
Published on May 15, 2015
Joining Audrey for this week’s REELTalk – a showdown for Free Speech happened in Garland, TX…but the Left and the craven on the Right began to shoot the messenger, Pamela Geller, rather than the intolerant Muslim perps. What’s happening to our Republic? We’ll discuss this with author ANDREW BOSTOM.