Archive for the ‘Jews’ Category

Germany tells Islamic Hitler Ahmadinejad (in Iran): the Holocaust is a historical fact & its unparalleled crime on the 6,000,000 Jews

February 22, 2009

Germany tells Islamic Hitler Ahmadinejad (in Iran): the Holocaust is a historical fact & its unparalleled crime on the 6,000,000 Jews

Ex-German chancellor, in Iran, says “Holocaust a fact”
Feb 21, 2009
TEHRAN, Feb 21 (Reuters) – Visiting former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder criticised on Saturday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for casting doubt over the Holocaust, saying the slaughter of 6 million Jews by Nazis was a fact.
Since coming to power in 2005, Ahmadinejad has provoked international condemnation for saying the Holocaust was a “myth” and calling Israel a “tumour” in the Middle East.
“The Holocaust is a historic fact and there is no sense in denying this unparalleled crime,” Schroeder told the Iranian Chamber of Industry and Commerce.
“Iran needs to take responsibility and respect international rules, if it wants to be taken seriously as a regional power.”
Schroeder, due to meet Ahmadinejad in Tehran later on Saturday, also criticised the hardline leader for his views on Israel which Iran has refused to recognise since its 1979 Islamic revolution.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSHAF142289

Germany’s ex-chancellor asks Iranians to recognise Holocaust Hanover (Germany), Feb 21 (DPA) On a visit to Iran, former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was set to criticise Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial that the Holocaust happened, a German newspaper said Friday.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/germanys-ex-chancellor-asks-iranians-to-recognise-holocaust_100157817.html

More on Islamic Hitler: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/173597.php

At least one case of “Moderate” Arab Muslims’ bigotry – defeated [Arabism = racism!]

February 22, 2009

At least one case of “Moderate” Arab Muslims’ bigotry – defeated

Bret Stephens on http://www.foxnews.com/journal/“hits & misses”, The Fining of UAE over denial of visa to Israeli tennis player is a “defeat for bigotry”

WTA fines Dubai Open organisers after Israeli Shahar Peer denied visa – Feb 20, 2009 The Women’s Tennis Association has fined the Dubai Open organisers $US300,000 ($A465,000) after the United Arab Emirates refused to grant a visa to Israeli …

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25086276-23209,00.html

Under-fire UAE likely to give Israel’s Andy Ram a visa

Israeli doubles specialist Andy Ram is likely to be granted a visa by the United Arab Emirates to play in the Dubai Championships next week, which could prevent a major crisis for tennis…

“To discriminate as the UAE did against one player in this way smacks of bigotry and racism,” the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations said in a statement. “This must be declared unacceptable by the WTA and all international sporting associations. As we learned in the past, failure to condemn such actions and take corrective measures, proves destructive to international sporting competition.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/4692024/Under-fire-UAE-likely-to-give-Israels-Andy-Ram-a-visa.html

Sponsors pull out of Dubai Open after UAE deny visa to Israeli

RACISM ROW: The Wall Street Journal Europe and the Tennis Channel have revoked their sponsorship of the WTA Dubai Open because the UAE denied a visa to Israeli player Shahar Peer.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25072951-5005401,00.html

Tennis: Racism Rears Its Ugly Head Shahar Peer is an Israeli tennis player. The United Arab Emirates barred her from participating in the Barclays Dubai tournament

http://ballhype.com/story/tennis_racism_rears_its_ugly_head/

United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has no diplomatic links with Israel, denied her an entry visa into the country. “To discriminate as the UAE did against one player in this way smacks of bigotry and racism,”

http://www.javno.com/en-sports/jewish-leaders-call-on-wta-to-sanction-dubai-event_235390

Israel vs Genocide – from Arabs, Muslims

February 2, 2009

Israel VS Islamo Arab campaign of Genocide.

Israel has always faced (radical) Arab genocide, To fully understand current conflicts in the Middle East, history must be recalled. [1]

CLEAR GOAL OF GENOCIDE CAMPAIGN SINCE THE 1920s

Contents

1920s

The Hebron Massacre of 1929, Thousands of Arabs descended from Har Hebron, shouting “Kill the Jews!” in Arabic [2]

This was not the first mass racist attack by Arabs against unarmed civilian Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ nor would it be the last attempted extermination. [3].

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the Mufti and Hitler, Nazism … In his last public appearance in a speech before a World Islamic Conference in 1962, the Mufti called for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews [4].

1967

[1967] The Six-Day War, Gamal Nasser tells cheering Egyptians he intends to throw the Jews into the sea [5], the Arab leaders’ slogan : We’ll Throw Them into the Sea” [6]

Current

Palestinian Arabs

The Palestinians Encouraging Genocide [7] and on Palestinian TV openly call: Kill All The Jews [8], Palestinian Muslim cleric urges all Arabs to kill Jews, Christians [9], (Even calling to Kill all Americans [10]), Islamic sermons broadcast on Palestinian Authority have also been openly genocidal [11] An ideology of genocidal radical Islamism – Jihad-Islamism.[12]

At the second Palestinian violent Intifada, they came up with a new (tool in) Genocide: Suicide Bombing [13].

An emphasis in radicals’ work is indoctrinating Palestinian Children to Genocidal Hate, Imams are extremely influential in successfully emphasizing the goals of jihad and martyrdom [14]

Especially the Islamic party: Hamas promotes Islamic supremacy over the world, “The Hamas Ideology of Hatred and Genocide: Islamic supremacy over the world, destroying Israel and Jews [15], vows to ‘drink’ Jewish blood, group would drink the blood of Jews [16], Hamas Mickey-Mouse-like character to incite for genocide [17], Genocide of Jews remains Hamas goal [18] and declare: “The Final Goal of the Resistance is to Wipe This Entity Off the Face of the Earth” “We are making the preparations for a confrontation. This is not because we need to be prepared for an Israeli act of aggression – after all, aggression is intrinsic to this entity – but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity off the face of the Earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out.” [19]

Hamas Charter 1988 | Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, … Hamas wants the ‘islamisation’ of all the Middle East (as a first phase) … [20]

Shoebat (former Palestinian terrorist) notes that; “The Arab war against Israel is a genocide jihad,” [21], It is part of an all out ‘Islamic Genocide Plan’ [22]

S. Singer: Confront Real Obstacle: Genocidal Jihad, the more Israel embraced Palestinian statehood, including even the right-wing icon Ariel Sharon, the more violent and radicalized the Palestinians have become. [23]

The Genocide Agenda under ‘Pro Palestinian propaganda’

On the “inspiring” Palestinian (so called) documentaries films It is understandable that the mere existence of Israel in such close proximity is unbearable. What is strikingly serious in all these films is that if one were to count the most often used words, these words would be “humiliation” and “Kill the Jews!” Even in the most peaceful and idealistic documentary… a young boy asked what he wants to do when he grows up is prompted by his father: “Kill the Jews!” When asked to draw a picture of his future he draws himself killing Israelis. [24]

ISM or International Solidarity Mission, which is a Palestinian Arab propaganda machine has organized numerous activities especially on campus, Both ISM and PSM support in thinly veiled language suicide bombings and the … the audience chanted “Kill the Jews” – “Ittbach al yahood” in Arabic [25].

At Israel’s operation against Hamas terrorists in ‘cast lead’ [26] December 2008-January 2009, anti Israel Arab Muslim protesters called for Jews to ‘Go Back to the Oven’, or calling to ‘kill all the Jews’, Other demonstrators held signs that said “Nuke Israel,” and a number made comparisons to the Holocaust [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32].

In SF Dec. 2008, The anti-Israel side had one slogan in English, and several more in Arabic. The English-language slogan: “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” – which frankly states the intent to destroy the Jewish state and ethnically cleanse the land. The Arabic slogans: “Itbach al Yahud” (slaughter the Jews), “Falastin balad’na w’al Yahud qalab’na” (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), “ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin” (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), “al mawt al Yahud” (death to the Jews), “Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud, jaish-Muhammad saya’ud” (Khaybar Khaybar oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return). [33].

Al Qaeda

In Al-Qaeda’s Intellectual Legacy – Islamic Thinking justifying the genocide of infidels, According to al- Ali, all citizens of Israel are to be considered combatants.[34].

Hezbollah

The Hezbollah Founding Statement contains a section titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel,” which reads as follows: “We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve . . . Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. [35]

Hezbollah calling on Muslims to kill all Jewish Israelis with firearms, knives and poison [36]

The widening arena of Hezbollah’s attacks stemmed from Nasrallah’s perception that Jews anywhere are legitimate targets. In fact, Hasan Nasarallah has said: If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002) [37].

More from Hassan Nasrallah, Leader of Hezbollah on Al Manar: “Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan, America, is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after September 11, death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.” (House Record: ‘war is ugly but tyranny is uglier’). [38], “Martyrdom operations — suicide bombings — should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don’t be shy about it.” [39]

Recent Hezbollah’s renewal of Jihad Genocide on Global “Jewish Targets” (June, 2008) [40].

The Muslim Brotherhood

The ‘Muslim Brotherhood’s Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi: ‘There is No Dialogue between Us and the Jews Except by the Sword and the Rifle’ (he was described as: ‘The Mufti of Terrorism’ and ‘The Propagandist of Extremism.’) [41]

Ahmadinejad

Islamic Republic of Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map” has triggered a sharp international response and widespread condemnation [42] [43] (It was not mistranslated [44]). He ‘faced genocide case’, in 14 Dec 2006 was expected to be the target of a lawsuit which accuses him of inciting genocide against Israel. [45]

In 2007, Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilatio, Iran: ‘Israel, US will soon die’ [46]


The Hebron Massacre of 1929… Thousands of Arabs descended from Har Hebron, shouting “Kill the Jews!” in Arabic. …

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html

In 1929 there were Arab terrorist riots in British Mandate Palestine against the civilian Jewish population that lived there.

“The [1929] riots were accompanied by militant Arab slogans such as… ‘Palestine is our land and the Jews our dogs…’ [and] brutal acts by Arabs…such as the killings in Hebron, where small children were tortured by their murderers before being murdered. …the Jewish community in Palestine found itself caught up in a wave of violent disturbances that swept with a fury through Jewish settlements and neighborhoods throughout the length and breadth of the country. The danger now appeared to threaten the very survival of the entire Jewish community.”

This was not the first mass racist attack by Arabs against unarmed civilian Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ nor would it be the last attempted extermination.

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov.htm

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the Mufti and Hitler, Nazism and …In his last public appearance in a speech before a World Islamic Conference in 1962, the Mufti called for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews…

http://www.jewishmag.com/116mag/chuckmorse/chuckmorse.htm

DEFINITION of “GENOCIDE BOMBERS”

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30138

ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS FACED ARAB GENOCIDE. by Louis Rene Beres – [September 2, 2003] To fully understand current conflicts in the Middle East, history must be…

http://christianactionforisrael.org/newsl/news150.html

Israel – Radical Islamism = Racism = Genocide. Jihad-Islamism …

http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2001/israel/sept/01/108311102.html

Hamas promotes Islamic supremacy over the world …”The Hamas Ideology of Hatred and Genocide: Islamic supremacy over the world, destroying Israel and Jews, promoting terror and violence,”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016618.php

The Islamic Genocide Plan… .Al Jazeera television broadcast a videotape on July 27, 2006, which showed Al-Zawahiri exhorting Muslims to wage jihad against Israel…

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2570

Palestinians Encouraging Genocide

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html
“The Arab war against Israel is a jihad,” … “In Hebron and in our village, even before World War II, jihad was genocide,” Shoebat notes. …

http://www.think-israel.org/lappen.shoebat.html
History of Jihad and Intifada against the Israel (1948 – ongoing) Israel stands in the way of the march of the Islamic Jihad towards the Western … in the form of suicide (genocide) bombers who blow school kids to bits, …

http://www.historyofjihad.org/israel.html
Genocide of Jews remains Hamas goal – March 30, 2007 … and bring victory to your Jihad-fighting worshipers, in Palestine and everywhere… .

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html

Support for Hezbollah in Egypt Threatens Mubarak’s Stability… calling on Muslims to kill all Jewish Israelis with firearms, knives and poison. … The mufti praised Hezbollah…

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/n…icleid=2370117

[1967] The Six-Day War… Gamal Nasser tells cheering Egyptians he intends to throw the Jews into the sea. Egypt and Syria are mobilized for war with Soviet arms. …

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/20940.html

We’ll Throw Them into the Sea,”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles…le.asp?ID=1314

Top Hamas official: Kill all Americans | Jerusalem Post, The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, …

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178020746583&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Palestinian TV: Kill All The Jews, Palestinian TV: Kill All The Jews The Palestinian Authority is inciting the current wave of violence through its official media. against the Jews and the Americans

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Palestinian_TV_Kill_All_The_Jews.asp

Hamas Mickey: Let’s kill Jews … Hamas – the terrorist group with a majority in the Palestinian Authority – is using a Mickey-Mouse-like character to [incite for genocide]…

http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1932

PALESTINIAN MUSLIM CLERIC URGES ALL ARABS TO KILL JEWS, CHRISTIANS …

http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1418.cfm

Hamas vows to ‘drink’ Jewish blood, See terrorist group’s video with messages … group would drink the blood of Jews until they “leave the Muslim countries. …

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48844

Hamas Video: “We Are A Nation That Drinks Jewish Blood,” Promises To Kill Jews “Until We Have Quenched Our Thirst With Your Blood”. February 24, 2006 …

http://www.zoa.org/2006/02/hamas_video_we.htm

YouTube – Hamas Video- We will Drink the Blood of the Jews,Half a month after its electoral victory, a Hamas website presented the parting video messages of two Hamas suicide terrorists.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN9cvLcZRsw&NR=1

Palestinians Hamas: “The Final Goal of the Resistance is to Wipe This Entity Off the Face of the Earth”

“We are making the preparations for a confrontation. This is not because we need to be prepared for an Israeli act of aggression – after all, aggression is intrinsic to this entity – but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity off the face of the Earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out.”

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa…sd&ID=SP168207

Iran: President Says Israel Should Be ‘Wiped Off Map’ – RADIO FREE …Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map” has triggered a sharp international response and widespread condemnation. …

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/E15E03D6-1013-440F-BDCF-E61D727624ED.html

Iran’s President Says Israel Must Be ‘Wiped Off the Map’ – New …Iran’s President Says Israel Must Be ‘Wiped Off the Map’ … “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/international/middleeast/6cnd-iran.html

[ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN’S HEZBULLAH]

Hassan Nasrallah: In His Own Words…

Nasrallah and Jews

Within a month of Nasrallah’s taking over as leader, Hezbollah (with the help of Iranian intelligence) bombed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 and injuring over 200. The next attack perpetrated by Hezbollah—again with Iranian help—was the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 86 and injuring over 200.

The widening arena of Hezbollah’s attacks stemmed from Nasrallah’s perception that Jews anywhere are legitimate targets. In fact, Nasarallah has said:

If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

Shiite scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb analyzed the anti-Jewish roots of Hezbollah ideology in her book Hezbollah: Politics & Religion. In it, she quotes Hassan Nasrallah describing his antipathy toward Jews…

Nasrallah also incoroporates anti-Semitic rhetoric in speeches. For example, he has characterized Jews as the “grandsons of apes and pigs” and “Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures.” (MEMRI: Al- Manar, Feb. 3, 2006) …

Nasrallah’s anti-American sentiments are continuously on display. He fuels anti-American attitudes in the Middle East with charges such as his statement that Americans “have outdone Hitler.” (AP, Oct. 2, 2001) During one TV broadcast, Narallah accused the US of many “sponsored plans for extermination, eradication and genocide” against the people in the Middle East. (BBC Monitoring: Al-Manar, Feb. 8, 2002)

A 2002 appearance on Al-Manar illustrates his deep hostility toward the United States:

Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute …

I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America. (BBC Monitoring: Al-Manar, Sep. 27, 2002)

Nasrallah boasts about Hezbollah’s designation as a terrorist group by America:

It is our pride that the Great Satan (U.S.) and the head of despotism, corruption and arrogance in modern times considers us as an enemy that should be listed in the terrorism list…I say to every member of Hezbollah (should) be happy and proud that your party has been placed on the list of terrorist organizations as the U.S. view it. (United Press International, Nov. 4, 2001)

At a rally in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, Nasrallah encouraged worldwide suicide bombing against the West:

Martyrdom operations – suicide bombings – should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don’t be shy about it. (Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2002)

Ahmadinejad must believe that he can get away with a plan for genocide because his remarks about wiping Israel off the map have been largely disregarded by the world community. He is trying to delegitimize the State of Israel by denying the Holocaust and has supported and financed Hizballah’s leader Sheikh Nasrallah. Nasrallah has been calling for more Jews to immigrate to Israel – only so that it will make it easier to destroy them all if they are gathered in one location

http://www.thelikud.org/channels/features/feature_07.html

IsraCast: Ahmadinejad – Nasser’s Successor Will Ahmadinejad Eventually Suffer Same Fate As Did Nasser On June 5th, 1967? …. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Threats Recall Those Of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser Before He Tried To Wipe Israel Off The Map In Six Day War Of 1967… “throw the Jews into the sea“, the IDF had fought the war without hatred. …

http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?ID=650&t=Ahmadinejad—Nasser’s-Successor

Palestinians Hamas: “The Final Goal of the Resistance is to Wipe This Entity Off the Face of the Earth

“We are making the preparations for a confrontation. This is not because we need to be prepared for an Israeli act of aggression – after all, aggression is intrinsic to this entity – but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity off the face of the Earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out.”
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP168207

Ahmadinejad Was Not Mistranslated

June 17, 2008 – 11:32 am

A new study by Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs sets out to refute the claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders are being misquoted when they call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

As the executive summary states: “What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said“ and how it has been interpreted in Iran “ is that the Iranian president was not just calling for ‘regime change’ in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel . When Ahmadinejad punctuates his speech with ‘Death to Israel (marg bar Esraiil ), this is no longer open to various interpretations.

Download this thorough – and chilling – analysis, in PDF format, by clicking here http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Ahmadinejad ‘faces genocide case’ 14 Dec 2006 … Iran’s president is expected to be the target of a lawsuit which accuses him of inciting genocide against Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6181029.stm

A senior Hamas leader in Gaza declared that it was signed and sealed within his party that Israel would be wiped off the map and replaced by a Palestinian …

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli…=1178708651048

The Hezbollah Founding Statement contains a section titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel,” which reads as follows: “We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve . . . Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6256

Iran: Israel, US will soon die – Israel News, Ynetnews Jan 23, 2007 … United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to … Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation …

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356154,00.html

Hamas Charter 1988 | Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, … Hamas wants the ‘islamisation’ of all the Middle East (as a first phase) …

http://www.israelpolitik.org/2008/12/31/hamas-charter-1988/

The ‘Muslim Brotherhood’s Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi: ‘There is No Dialogue between Us and the Jews Except by the Sword and the Rifle’

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP75304&Page=archives

Hassan Nasrallah, Leader of Hezbollah on Al Manar:

 “Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan, America, is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after September 11, death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.” (House Record: ‘war is ugly but tyranny is uglier’).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070606-77&person=400260

“Martyrdom operations — suicide bombings — should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don’t be shy about it.”

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-12.htm

Teach Kids Peace “Seeking a Martyr’s Death: Video & Report, The regular PA TV programming includes song and dance accompanying scenes of violence and words glorifying willingness to die for Allah. …

http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc1013.php

One moderate Arab vs Arabism’s racism

October 7, 2008

One moderate Arab vs Arabism’s racism

‘Arabs, Israel should sit together,’ says Bahrain minister
Web posted at: 10/2/2008 1:35:54
Source ::: AFP

dubai • The foreign minister of staunch US ally Bahrain has called for the creation of a regional grouping of Arab states with historic foe Israel, as well as Iran and Turkey, a newspaper reported yesterday.

“Israel, Iran, Turkey and Arab states should sit together in one organisation,” Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmad Al Khalifa was quoted in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat as saying.

“Aren’t we all members of a global organisation called the United Nations? Why not (come together) on a regional basis? This is the only way to solve our problems. There’s no other way to solve them, now or in 200 years.”

Al Hayat, which interviewed the Bahraini chief diplomat in New York, said he had proposed the establishment of a regional bloc in a speech to the UN General Assembly.

Bahrain’s crown prince, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, met Israeli officials during World Economic Forum summits in 2000 and 2003, while Sheikh Khaled met Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni at the UN last year.

But political groupings in Bahrain, which is ruled by a Sunni dynasty and has a Shia majority, resist any attempt at normalisation of ties with Israel.

“Why don’t we sit together even if we disagree, even if we don’t recognise each other? Let’s be in a single organisation in order to overcome the difficult stage through which the Middle East is passing — a stage that remains hostage to the past,” Sheikh Khaled told Al Hayat, referring to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&month=October2008&file=World_News2008100213554.xml

The Arabism’s Racism reaction

Bahrain activists slam call for grouping of Arabs, Israel
by AFPThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it on Friday, 03 October 2008
PLAN SLAMMED: Lawmakers and opposition activists in Bahrain have slammed foreign minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmad Al-Khalifa (pictured) for calling for a regional bloc. (AFP)

Lawmakers and opposition activists in Bahrain on Thursday slammed the foreign minister of the Gulf state, a staunch US ally, after he called for a regional grouping of Arabs and historic foe Israel.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/532958

[Arab] Racism and Historical Truth: Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands

April 1, 2008

[Arab] Racism and Historical Truth: Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands
UN Watch (press release), Switzerland – Mar 19, 2008
We thank the Special Rapporteur for his work against racism, and address two areas of his report…

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=5118137

Hizballah Fascists

February 27, 2008

Hizballah Fascists

You saw it on LGF, worth looking at again:

capt.ttw10102171348.lebanon__ttw101.jpg
Hizbollah militants raise their arms in salute of assassinated Hezbollah top commander Imad Mughniyeh during a memorial service in his home village of Tair Debba, south Lebanon, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2008. (AP Photo/Tara Todras-Whitehill)

They’re not the only guys who use that kind of salute in the region. It attests to the direct influence of European Fascism on some of the trappings that these area groups have taken on. Fertile ground.


http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/02/hizballah-fascists</a

Islamic Genocide, past & present

February 26, 2008
Islamic Genocide, past & present

The world was shocked at the Islamic Hitler: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for certain nations to be “wiped off” (2005), however, we should remember the connection to past & present, genocide as an intergral part of radical Islam

The Islamic Genocide plan!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25704

During 1894-1923 the Ottoman Empire conducted a policy of Genocide of the Christian population living within its extensive territory. The Sultan, Abdul Hamid, first put forth an official governmental policy of genocide against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire in 1894. , Systematic massacres took place in 1894-1896 when Abdul savagely killed 300,000 Armenians throughout the provinces. Massacres recurred, and in 1909 government troops killed, in the towns of Adana alone, over 20,000 Christian Armenians.
http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm

1917 – (The Mufti) Amin Al-Husseini… brings with him lessons of genocide and the vision of leading a Pan-Islamic empire, where Jews and Christians are not acceptable.
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html

Jihad: A Major Determinant of the Armenian genocide …. The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7519

Armenian Genocide As non-Muslims they were also obligated to pay discriminatory taxes and denied … Talaat, the principal architect of the Armenian genocide, was killed in …
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocide.html

REMEMBERING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. Islam’s Holy War Against Christianity …. The Jihad against both Armenian and Greek Christians was renewed in 1922. …
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/asheville/terrorism/Middle%20East%20Crisis%2013%20RTF.htm

Let’s Talk About Armenian Genocide The Brussels Journal, However, the acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide has now become a … Victims of islamic hate crimes abound all over the globe – more so in India.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1476

In Sudan, “There’s a Genocide Going On “In Sudan, “There’s a Genocide Going On”. Islamic Government’s Atrocities Continue. KHARTOUM, Sudan, MAR. 17, 2001 (Zenit.org).
http://www.inaword.com/sudan.html

RADICAL ISLAMIC THINKING JUSTIFYING THE GENOCIDE OF INFIDELS … Based on the Islamic principle, one al-Qaeda leader argues that Muslims have the right …
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp508.htm

New Radical Islamic Thinking Justifying The Genocide of Infidels
http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/rob_imm.htm

Genocide of black Africans in Sudan by Arab IslamicsI am very well acquainted with the genocide the Islamic Arabs of Sudan are inflicting on the black Christians living in the southern sectors of the country. …
http://www.talkingproud.us/Eagle070804.html

Hamas Issues Islamic Call For Genocide on PA Television. by Ezra HaLevi. (IsraelNN.com) While Hamas has sought, since its Mecca Agreement with Fatah, … [04/12/07]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122094

The Hamas Ideology of Hatred and Genocide: Islamic supremacy over the world, destroying Israel and Jews, promoting terror and violence …
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_may2007.htm

Islamic Thinkers Society calls for genocide and Jihad on 34th Street. [April 25, 2006]..
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1867

…And the world has just stood idly by while this Arab-Islamic genocide of Blacks and Christians went on for years…
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15026

At Damour, as you may know, some 5000 Christians were massacred, at arafat’s command. Now, what makes those who denounced Israel for the massacre all the …
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/27/manute-bol-campaigns-for-darfur-while-west-remains-impotent/

Islamic genocide in South Asia, Hindus in Pakistan are a tiny minority who have suffered genocide and persecution by Islamic fanatics; Christians are also a minority there and have also …
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/18780.shtml

islamic jihad’s genocide plan 2 21 2008Islamic Jihad (IJ), also known as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (in Arabic, Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami al-Filastini), is a terrorist organization whose …
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6957

Darfur: the genocide is Islamic racism
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/12/darfur-genocide-is-islamic-racism.html

Hindu Conference of Canada: University Presentation on Islamic Genocide vs Hindus.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hindu-conference-of-canada-university-presentation-on-islamic-genocide-vs-hindus/649999564

Muslim genocide of hindus in India (a must read) – Islamophobia?
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/29320

History of Kosovo, WW2 Genocide – Albanian SS Skenderbey Division – an important historical analysis of the development of Nazism
http://www.kosovo.net/hist2.html

Bosnian Muslim Slaughter Serbs, second worst genocide of World War Two; the genocide the Serbian (and Jewish) …
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/Bosnia.html

Cultural genocide in the name of Islam Sep 13, 2005 …
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/09/cultural_genocide_in_the_name.html

Zoroastrian GenocideThe systematic genocide of Zoroastrians in post-Islamic Iran has been amongst the most tragic events in human history. Yet, this great tragedy is not as …
http://www.vohuman.org/SiteMap/ZoroastrianGenocide.htm

Today’s [Islamic] genocide against Israel is the latest manifestation of a 1400 …..
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/islam_democracy_taheri_vs_judd.php

islamic genocide against the people of bangladesh, In course of our discussion, the topics of 1971’s Pakistani army sponsored Genocide in Bangladesh and the role of Islamic fascist war criminals were covered …
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamalHasan50215.htm

Islamic Terrorism and Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, The Global Islamic Terrorist Framework … Hence this peace loving minority with a modern outlook became the main victim of terrorist violence. …
http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org/sundry/genocide.html

Islamic Fascists call for genocide of non-Muslims Celebrating Death. daily articles, essays and links Categories. Victims ‘ Palestinian Terror … Islamic Fascists call for genocide of non-Muslims … http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000840.html

Affluent Genocide by Robert Spencer The Times is no doubt listening to moderate Muslims in the United States
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10282

Symposium: Darfur – Islam’s Killing fields …The Darfur genocide. Safe Darfur!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15026 http://savedarfur.org/

UN, EU and Muslim countries should recognise ‘Anfal’ genocide (on Kurds in 1988)
http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13067

Anfal: The Kurdish Genocide in Iraq
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

The accepted genocide of Kurds (of 1937-1938) in Turkey , Since the Armenian genocide, Turkey has done very well to hide and disguise its dark history from the international community. But a shady past rarely dawns a bright future. 1937-1938 ‘ The Dersim Genocide, Approximately 40.000-70.000 of Kurdish Alawi … 1942, November 11 – The law of taxation on property of the non-Muslims
http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13491

Taking A Stand Against Genocide
by Robert Spencer

On February 9, U.S. Representative Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) will deliver the keynote address at a reception marking the beginning of a new campaign against genocide. The David Horowitz Freedom Center has developed a Declaration Against Genocide, and is inviting campus groups around the country to endorse it, and decisively repudiate the genocidal statements made by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and others.

The Declaration notes that Islamic jihadists in the Middle East have been speaking boldly about their plans to initiate a new genocide against the Jews, and that Sudanese and other Africans have been victims of a slow-motion genocide motivated by much the same jihadist ideology. The Declaration also calls on campus groups to affirm ‘the freedom of the individual conscience and the right to change religions or have no religion at all; the equal dignity of men and women; and the right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation and coercion.’
The genocidal aspect of today’s global Islamic jihad has received scant attention from the media or from human rights activists, despite the candor with which Islamic leaders have spoken about it. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has declared that Israel’s end is near: ‘There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.’ He harbors similar dreams for America: ‘The accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.’
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24896

The accepted genocide of Kurds (of 1937-1938) in Turkey , Since the Armenian genocide, Turkey has done very well to hide and disguise its dark history from the international community. But a shady past rarely dawns a bright future. 1937-1938 ‘ The Dersim Genocide, Approximately 40.000-70.000 of Kurdish Alawi … 1942, November 11 – The law of taxation on property of the non-Muslims http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13491


Symposium: Darfur – Islam’s Killing fields …The Darfur genocide. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15026 http://savedarfur.org/ Safe Darfur!


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/sudan_niger_darfur_maurataniagenocide_child_rape_slavery/index.html


http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_sudanwatch_archive.html


http://www.darfurgenocide.org/darfur.php


The Islamic Genocide Plan

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25704

The Islamic Genocide Plan
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com December 1, 2006
The following words and pictures prove that radical Muslims have long dreamed, plotted, and demonstrated in favor of the annihilation of Israel and all the Jews in the world. Unfortunately, words and demonstrations are not where they are willing to stop. — The Editors
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, President of Iran

  • “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land.”
  • “As the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said, Israel must be wiped off the map.’
  • ‘… the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.’
  • “The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy [Israel] to live in its heartland.”
  • “Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognize Israel face the wrath of their own people.”
  • “There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.”
  • ‘The creation of the occupying regime in [Israel] is a strong action by the ruling arrogant [American imperialist] world order against the world of Islam. There continues a historic war between the World Arrogance and the Islamic world, the roots of which go back hundreds of years ago. … The World Arrogance turned the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem into a staging-ground to dominate the Islamic world. This occupying country is in reality the staging-ground of the World Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have created a base, from where they can expand their rule over the entire Islamic world; it has no other purpose other than this.’
  • ‘The war that is presently going on in Palestine is the frontline of the war of destiny between the Islamic world and the World Arrogance, which will determine the outcome of hundreds of years [of war] in Palestine.’
  • ‘Our dear Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] ordered that the occupying regime in Jerusalem be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one which we could compromise on. ‘ This would mean the defeat of the Islamic world.’
  • ‘The issue in Palestine is by no means finished. The Palestinian issue will only be resolved when all of Palestine comes under stringent Palestinian rule.’
  • ‘I am hopeful that just as the Palestinian nation continued its struggle for the past ten years, they will continue to keep their awareness and vigilance. This period is going to be short-lived. If we put it behind us successfully, god willing, it will pave the way for the destruction and the downfall of the Zionist regime.’
  • Ahmadinejad has called Israel a “tumor” that should be “wiped off the map” or moved out of the Middle East, perhaps to Alaska.
  • “Zionists have launched their own destruction by attacking Lebanon.” (July 23, 2006)
  • “Their [Israelis’] methods resemble Hitler’s. When Hitler wanted to launch an attack, he came up with a pretext. Zionists say they are Hitler’s victims, but they have the same nature as Hitler.”
  • “The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive. … The big powers have created this fraud regime and allowed it to commit all kind of crimes to guarantee their interests.”
  • “They [the Jews] have no boundaries, limits, or taboos when it comes to killing human beings. Who are they? Where did they come from? Are they human beings? ‘They are like cattle, nay, more misguided.’ A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians. Next to them, all the criminals of the world seem righteous.”
  • “When I see the behavior of America, England, and their other accomplices in recent days, I get the impression that they are preparing even greater crimes. I warn them: Know that the fire of the wrath of the peoples is about to erupt and overflow. If you do not put an end to your crimes, know that the ocean of the peoples will soon rage. When the peoples begin to move, they will drag everybody to the defendant’s bench, and will remove them from the throne of power.”
  • “Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology. Those who want to talk with our people should know what people they are talking to. If some believe they can keep talking to the Iranian people in the language of threats and aggressiveness, they should know that they are making a bitter mistake. If they have not realized this by now, they soon will, but then it will be too late. Then they will realize that they are facing a vigilant, proud people.”

“Today, Hizbullah in Lebanon is the standard-bearer of the resistance of all the monotheistic peoples, of the seekers of justice, and of the free people. Hassan Nasrallah is shouting the loud cry of the vigilant human consciences. Today, Hizbullah stands tall as the representative of all the peoples, all the vigilant consciences, all the monotheistic people, all the seekers of justice, and all free people of the world, against the rule of hegemony. Until now, with the help of Allah, [Hizbullah] is winning, and, Allah willing, it will reach the ultimate victory in the near future.”
Abu Maamun, a senior leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Jenin

“I think and I have no doubt that they have the ability to target Tel Aviv and that the question when to do so depends on the situation on the ground. As long as the hero [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah will manage to lead an equal fight with Israel it will not target Tel Aviv and will leave this to the next round in a few months. We hope he will hit Tel Aviv very soon, but as militants of a resistance organization, we know that there are priorities, considerations and calculations [regarding] when to make a strategic decision. Our dream is to see the Zionists in the center of occupied Palestine under rocket attack ‘ a thing they have not felt in all the Arab-Israel conflict. … [T]his is the dream of the great majority of our people. We pray that this will happen, and we believe that such a great rocket revolution will mark the beginning of a new era in the region and will break the psychological wall in the idea that Israel is invincible.” (August 3, 2006)

The Charter of Hamas (1988)

The Charter of Hamas, puts forth “The Slogan of the Hamas,” which reads as follows: “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path, and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.” The Charter says that jihad, or holy war, “becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission.”
The Hamas Charter explicitly abjures negotiated settlements as mechanisms for peaceful coexistence: “There is no other solution for the Palestinian problem other than jihad. All the initiatives and international conferences are a waste of time and a futile game.” According to the Charter, those against whom jihad is to be directed are the Jews. “The Nazism of the Jews,” it says, “does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor.” Hamas seeks to fulfill the Qur’anic scripture which reads: “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

The Hamas Charter further states: ‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’; ‘The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised’; ‘Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.’

Hassan Nasrallah, Leader of Hezbollah

  • “The limit of our bombardment will not remain Haifa, regardless of the enemy’s response.” (July 26, 2006)

‘Brothers and sisters, throughout the entire Arab-Israeli conflict — when were two million Israelis forced to become displaced, or to stay in bomb shelters for more than 18 days? This figure will grow as we extend the phase of ‘beyond Haifa’ ‘ because the bombing of Afula and its military base was [only] the beginning of this phase. There are many cities in the center [of Israel] which will be targeted in the phase of ‘beyond Haifa,’ if this barbaric aggression against our land, people, and villages continues.’ (July 29, 2006)

  • “When the people of this tyrannical state [Israel] loses its faith in its mythical army, it is the beginning of the end of this entity ‘ because Israel is a country that was established for the sake of an army, and the army in Israel does not belong to the state. Once they sense that this army has become helpless, weak, defeated, humiliated, and a failure, the question will definitely become one of life or death.” (July 29, 2006)
  • “Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history … Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”
  • “[I]f they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”
  • “[T]hey [the Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”
  • “There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.”
  • “One of the central reasons for creating Hizbullah was to challenge the Zionist program in the region. Hizbullah still preserves this principle, and when an Egyptian journalist visited me after the liberation and asked me if the destruction of Israel and the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem were Hizbullah’s goal, I replied: ‘That is the principal objective of Hizbullah, and it is no less sacred than our [ultimate] goal.’ We face an entity that conquered the land of another people, drove them out of their land, and committed horrendous massacres. As we see, this is an illegal state; it is a cancerous entity and the root of all the crises and wars and cannot be a factor in bringing about a true and just peace in this region. Therefore, we cannot acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel, not even far in the future, as some people have tried to suggest. Time does not cancel the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.”
  • “Put a knife in your shirt, then get close to an Israeli occupier and stab him.”
  • “The Palestinian National Charter will live on as long as there is a knife in a Palestinian woman’s hand with which she stabs an Israeli soldier or settler … as long as there are suicide bombers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv … and as long as there is a child who throws a stone in the face of an Israeli soldier.”
  • “Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute. … Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, ‘Death to America’ will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: ‘Death to America.'”
  • “Martyrdom operations — suicide bombings — should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don’t be shy about it.” (December 6, 2002)
  • “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.”
  • Nasrallah has characterized Jews as the “grandsons of apes and pigs,” and as “Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures.”
  • “It is our pride that the Great Satan [the U.S.] and the head of despotism, corruption and arrogance in modern times considers us as an enemy that should be listed in the terrorism list. … I say to every member of Hezbollah [should] be happy and proud that your party has been placed on the list of terrorist organizations as the U.S. view it.” (November 4, 2001)


Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the top Egyptian cleric of Al­Azhar University

  • According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, a website associated with Al­Azhar University recently reported in early 2002: “The great Imam of Al­Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all. [Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat'”


Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al Tayyeb, Egyptian Mufti

  • “The solution to the Israeli terror lies in a proliferation of Fidai [martyrdom] attacks that strike horror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah. The Islamic countries, peoples and rulers alike, must support these martyrdom attacks.”


Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), and spritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood

  • “We are fighting them in the name of Islam, because Islam commands us to fight whoever plunders our land, and occupies our country. All the school of Islamic jurisprudence ‘ the Sunni, the Shi’ite, the Ibadhiya, and all the ancient and modern schools of jurisprudence ‘ agree that any invader who occupies even an inch of land of the Muslims must face resistance. The Muslims of that country must carry out the resistance, and the rest of the Muslims must help them. If the people of that country are incapable or reluctant, we must fight to defend the land of Islam, even if the local [Muslims] give it up.”
  • “They must not allow anyone to take a single piece of land away from Islam. That is what we are fighting the Jews for. We are fighting them… Our religion commands us… We are fighting in the name of religion, in the name of Islam, which makes this Jihad an individual duty, in which the entire nation takes part, and whoever is killed in this [Jihad] is a martyr. This is why I ruled that martyrdom operations are permitted, because he commits martyrdom for the sake of Allah, and sacrifices his soul for the sake of Allah.’
  • “We do not disassociate Islam from the war. On the contrary, disassociating Islam from the war is the reason for our defeat. We are fighting in the name of Islam.”
  • “They fight us with Judaism, so we should fight them with Islam. They fight us with the Torah, so we should fight them with the Koran. If they say ‘the Temple,’ we should say ‘the Al-Aqsa Mosque.’ If they say: ‘We glorify the Sabbath,’ we should say: ‘We glorify the Friday.’ This is how it should be. Religion must lead the war. This is the only way we can win.”
  • “Everything will be on our side and against Jews on [Judgment Day]; at that time, even the stones and the trees will speak, with or without words, and say: ‘Oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim, there’s a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ They will point to the Jews. It says ‘servant of Allah,’ not ‘servant of desires,’ ‘servant of women,’ ‘servant of the bottle,’ ‘servant of Marxism,’ or ‘servant of liberalism’… It said ‘servant of Allah.”
  • “There is no dialogue between us [Muslims and Jews] except by the sword and the rifle ‘”


Hezbollah, Muslim terrorist organization

  • In a 1992 statement, Hezbollah vowed, “It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.”
  • The Hezbollah Founding Statement reads: “We are the sons of the umma [Muslim community] — the party of God … the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. ‘ We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. ‘ Our culture is crystal clear. It is not complicated and is accessible to all. No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier. And when it becomes necessary to carry out the Holy War, each of us takes up his assignment in the fight in accordance with the injunctions of the Law, and that in the framework of the mission carried out under the tutelage of the Commanding Jurist. ‘ We combat abomination and we shall tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S. All attempts made to drive us into marginal actions will fail, especially as our determination to fight the U.S. is solid. ”
  • The Hezbollah Founding Statement contains a section titled ‘The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel,’ which reads as follows: ‘We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.’


Khalid Mashal, member of the Hamas Political Bureau

  • ‘You [Jews] will be defeated with God’s help. Victory’s day is approaching with God’s help. Before Israel dies, it will not escape humiliation and surrender. Before they die, with God’s help they will witness humiliation and surrendering. And America will not be there to help; nor will their generals. The last general is forgotten. God made Sharon disappear and he was departed from them. ‘ We forced a new equation in this battle. The new equation plays to our hands. We will defeat them [the Israelis]. We will defeat them emotionally and mentally before we defeat them in the field of battle. Gaza is the victory’s bed. ‘ Victory in these elections sends a message to Israel and America and all the abusers of this world. With us you will never succeed and you will always lose. If you want war, we are ready for war. ‘ The days of defeat within six days with hours are over. Today you are fighting against the army of Allah. Today you are fighting against people who care for dying for Allah, dying for honor and prestige more than they care for life itself.’


Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas Foreign Minister

  • ‘I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it.’
  • ‘Even if the U.S. gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives.’

Fatah, terrorist faction headed by the late Yasser Arafat

  • Fatah defines as its principal goal the achievement of the “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence.” According to Fatah, this objective is not to be accomplished by peaceful means; nor does it allow for Israel’s continued existence: “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine. ‘ [T]he Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.” Candidly opposed to “any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine,” Fatah has made its organizational emblem a grenade and crossed rifles, superimposed on a map of present-day Israel. Fatah’s military arm, Tanzim, is funded by the Palestinian Authority and has played a leading role in Palestinian violence in recent years.
  • The “Essential Principles” of Fatah’s Constitution include the following: “Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the worldwide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism”; “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation which necessities the materialistic and human support of the Arab Nation”; “UN projects, accords and reso[lutions], or those of any individual which undermine the Palestinian people’s right in their homeland, are illegal and rejected”; “The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial, and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method”; “The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism”; “Liberating Palestine and protecting its holy places is an Arab, religious, and human obligation.”

Sakher Habash, senior Central Committee member of Fatah

  • During a 1998 lecture at Shechem’s An-Najah University, Habash said: ‘To us, the refugee issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state.’

Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (excerpts)

  • Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
  • Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
  • Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
  • Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.
  • Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute — both their organizations and the individuals — one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.
  • Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. ‘
  • Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.
  • Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation — peoples and governments — with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.
  • Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland …
  • Article 20: Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
  • Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.
  • Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.


Yasser Arafat

  • ‘We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.’
  • ‘Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.’
  • ‘The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine.’
  • ‘Continued to press on soldiers of freedom! We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem our land!’
  • ‘Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.’

Zahir Muhse’in, PLO Executive Committee Member

  • “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality todaythere is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” (March 31, 1977)

Excerpts from Palestinian Authority sermons:

  • “We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard in the war against the Jews until the resurrection of the dead, as the prophet Mohammed said: ‘The resurrection of the dead will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them…’ We the Palestinians are the vanguard in this undertaking and in this campaign, whether or not we want this…” (Palestinian TV, July 28, 2000)
  • “Blessed is he who fights jihad in the name of Allah, blessed is he who [goes on] raids in the name of Allah, blessed is he who dons a vest of explosives on himself or on his children and goes in to the depth of the Jews and says: ‘Allahu Akbar, blessed be Allah.’ Like the collapse of the building upon the heads of the Jews in their sinful dance-hall, I ask of Allah that we see the Knesset collapsing on the heads of the Jews.” (Palestinian TV, June 8, 2001)
  • “The battle with the Jews will surely come … the decisive Moslem victory is coming without a doubt, and the prophet spoke about in more than one Hadith. And the day of resurrection will not come without the victory of the believers [the Moslems] over the descendents of the monkeys and pigs [the Jews] and with their annihilation.” (official P.A. newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 18, 2001)
  • “The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… the true criminals, the Jewish terrorists, that slaughtered our children, that turned our wives into widows and our children into orphans, and desecrated our holy places. They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… it is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them anyplace that you find yourself. Any place that you encounter them — kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans that are like them… Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere…” (Palestinian TV, October 13, 2000)
  • “O Allah, destroy America as it is controlled by Zionist Jews… Allah will avenge, in the name of His Prophet, the colonialist settlers who are the descendents of monkeys and pigs…” [Ikrime Sabri, Mufti of the Palestinian Authority, (from weekly sermon in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem). Voice of Palestine, July 11, 1997]


Abd-Al Malek Dahamshe, Israeli Arab Knesset Member

  • “Our problem with Israel is not a border problem, but an existential one,” Knesset Member Dahamshe responded: “We exaggerate when we say ‘peace’… What we are speaking about is Hudna” [a temporary agreement until some future liquidation of Israel]. (September 1, 2000)

Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader

  • “It’s our land. Nobody among our sons and grandsons will accept Israel as a legal state. … Israel is a foreign body. Not in this generation, not in the next generation, will we accept it here.”

Yasser Mansour, Hamas political candidate

  • Mansour said his group demands ownership of “Palestine from the river to the sea” — and believes in retaking the land from Jordan to the Mediterranean, including Israel.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, chief Lieutenant to Osama bin Laden

  • Al Jazeera television broadcast a videotape on July 27, 2006, which showed Al-Zawahiri exhorting Muslims to wage jihad against Israel by joining the ongoing military conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza. Asserting that he viewed “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us,” and that the Israeli-Hezbollah war will not be ended with “cease-fires or agreements,” Zawahiri said: “It is a jihad for the sake of God and will last until [our] religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq. We will attack everywhere.” “My fellow Muslims,’ he added, ‘it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit … and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies … make yourselves martyrs. ‘ The shells and rockets ripping apart Muslim bodies in Gaza and Lebanon are not only Israeli [weapons], but are supplied by all the countries of the crusader coalition. Therefore, every participant in the crime will pay the price. We cannot just watch these shells as they burn our brothers in Gaza and Lebanon and stand by idly, humiliated.’ In addition, Al-Zawahiri instructed Muslims to attack “crusaders and Zionists” and to support jihad “until American troops are chased from Afghanistan and Iraq, paralyzed and impotent … having paid the price for aggression against Muslims and support for Israel.”

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former President of Iran

  • “The use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”


Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, a top Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commander

  • “We have announced that wherever [in Iran] America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel,” said Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, a top Revolutionary Guards commander.

Suleiman Abu Gheith, al Qaeda spokesman

  • In a June 2002 manifesto (translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute), Abu Gheith wrote, “America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited. … America is the reason for all oppression, injustice, licentiousness, or suppression that is the Muslims’ lot. ‘ We have the right to kill 4 million Americans — 2 million of them children — and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons. ‘ America is kept at bay by blood alone.”


Al Qaeda, Muslim terrorist organization

  • The organization’s worldview and ideals are spelled out in a 1998 document titled “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders,” which Osama bin Laden co-authored with, among others, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The document reads: ” [I]n compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwah [ruling on Islamic law] to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it ‘ to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.”
  • Al Qaeda’s objectives, motives, and strategies are further detailed in an Al Qaeda Training Manual designed to instruct aspiring terrorists in the art of murdering “infidels.” The manual was discovered by England’s Manchester Metropolitan Police during a search of an al Qaeda member’s home. “Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils,” states this publication. “They are established as they [always] have been by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth.” The manual exhorts jihadists to “pledge ‘ to make their [the infidels’] women widows and their children orphans . . . to slaughter them like lambs and let the Nile, al-Asi, and Euphrates rivers flow with their blood ‘ to be a pick of destruction for every godless and apostate regime.” In addition, the manual enumerates what it calls “Missions Required of the Military Organization.” Among these are: “Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists; ‘ Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy; Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers; Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.”Finally, the manual explicitly declares that among al Qaeda’s “long-term goals” is “the establishment of an Islamic state.” But an “Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle,” the manual informs. “Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.”


Yahya Raheem Safavi, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commander (July 30, 2006)

  • “We Must Keep the Hatred of America Burning in Our Hearts Until the Moment of Revenge Arrives.”
  • “I hope that our courageous and great nation will succeed one day in taking revenge against Israel and America, avenging the blood of the oppressed Muslims and the martyrs.”
  • “We see America as also being the cause of the death of the 200,000 martyrs in the war that was forced upon us [i.e. the Iran-Iraq war], since it urged Saddam [Hussein] to attack Iran. We must keep the holy hatred burning in our hearts until the moment of revenge arrives.”
  • “In light of the Zionists’ crimes and oppression, I ask God to hasten the years when this regime will no longer exist. … The Zionists are hastening their own death through their foul deeds, since Hizbullah and the Lebanese people are undefeated. There is a need to topple the phony Zionist regime, this cancerous growth [called] Israel, which was founded in order to plunder the Muslims’ resources and wealth.”

NEW YORK



MOSCOW

MONTREAL

SYDNEY



LOS ANGELES


CHICAGO


CHICAGO


LONDON


BERN

COPENHAGEN


BERLIN

And let’s not forget…BEIRUT IN 2000

 

The ‘Islamo-Fascism’ Debate

February 10, 2008

Source: Aina…

As the David Horowitz Freedom Center unveils its Declaration Against Genocide in Washington on February 9, we are inviting campus groups of all types to join us in condemning the genocidal impulse within Islamo-Fascism.

This Symposium discussion of the term “Islamo-Fascism” takes on a new urgency in light of that Declaration and of the upcoming second Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will hit campuses nationwide the week of April 7.

The usefulness and accuracy of this term, and the general necessity of naming the enemy properly as a prerequisite for defeating it, became a subject of national debate during the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and that debate is certain to continue this April. This Symposium is dedicated to many of the issues involved.

Our guests are:

Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, the author of the new book god Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything and the editor of the new anthology, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of My Year Inside Radical Islam , which documents his time working for the extremist Al Haramain Islamic Foundation.

Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA’s Threat Assessment Center. He retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad. He was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.

Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

Donna Hughes, Professor and Carlson Endowed Chairperson of the University of Rhode Island Women’s Studies Program.

and

Thomas Haidon, the Chief Legal and Policy Advisor of the Free Muslim Coalition and a member of its Board of Advisors. A commentator on legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism measures and Islamic affairs, he currently serves as an advisor to the New Zealand government and has provided guidance to parliamentary committees on counter-terrorism issues. His works have been published in legal periodicals, newspapers and other media.

FP: Christopher Hitchens, Robert Spencer, Bruce Teft, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Donna Hughes and Thomas Haidon, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Christopher Hitchens, let’s begin with you.

Is the term “Islamo-Fascism” legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war?

Hitchens: The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch “Islamofascism Awareness Week” on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It’s quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology.

People like Tony Judt write to me to say in effect that it’s ahistorical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn’t use the word “Islamic” even to designate jihad, because to do is to risk incriminating an entire religion. He and others don’t want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced, because it isn’t applied to any other religion. This was most recently argued by Patrick J. Buchanan, who asked us how we would have felt if Franklin Roosevelt had described Mussolini, say, as “Christo-fascist”.

Buchanan in his own autobiography describes being raised in a home where the true heroes were Father Coughlin the Jew-baiting priest, General Franco the foe of the Reds and freemasons, and Joseph McCarthy the drink-sodden bigmouth and bigot. That’s why the term “Catholic fascist” or “clerical fascist” used to be so current on the left.

This was to recognize the undeniable fact that, from Spain to Croatia to Slovakia, there was a very direct link between fascism and the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, Yehoshua Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, coined the term “Judaeo-Nazi” to describe the messianic settlers who moved onto the occupied West Bank after 1967. So there need be no self-pity among Muslims about being “singled out” on this point.

The actual term “Islamofascism” was first used in 1990 in the London Independent by the Anglo-Irish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. The expression has some respectable antecedents. In his book, The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, published by Princeton in 1965, the German scholar Manfred Halpern (himself a refugee from the Third Reich) employed the term “Islamic totalitarian” to characterize the mingled worship of a heroic past with the mobilization of “passion and violence”. Perhaps you suspect Halpern of undue sympathy with Judaism or Zionism? Very well, then, consider Professor Maxime Rodinson, one of the most intransigent critics of the state of Israel. In an exchange with Michel Foucault in the late 1970s, on the subject of the nascent Shi’a theocracy in Iran, Rodinson writing in Le Monde alluded to “a certain type of archaic fascism” taking the form of “an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order.” I didn’t know about all of these for-runners when I employed the term “fascism with an Islamic face” to describe the assault on civil society on 11 September 2001, and to ridicule those who presented the attack as some kind of liberation theology in action. “Fascism with an Islamic face” is meant to summon a dual echo of both Alexander Dubcek and Susan Sontag (if I do say so myself), and in any case it can’t be used for everyday polemical purposes, so the question remains: does bin-Ladinism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism?

I think yes. The most obvious points of comparison would be these. Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Franco’s accomplice General Mola so pithily phrased it in a debate with Miguel de Unamuno). Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons) and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations”, and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader-worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”, and to its counterparts: the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence, and burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

Fascism (and Nazism) also attempted to counterfeit the then-success of the socialist movement by issuing pseudo-socialist and populist appeals. It has been very interesting to observe lately, especially in its most recent statement on the last anniversary of 11 September, the manner in which Al Quaeda has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and “Green” movements.

There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but bin-Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multi-national corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation state, Al Quaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived Caliphate but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?

Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master-race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shi’ite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing”. And of course bin-Laden has threatened force against UN peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends.

Essentially, though, the point of convergence occurs at the word “totalitarian”. Study any serious proclamation about shari’a and you will be struck by the way in which Islam proposes itself as a “total” solution, covering every area of life and effectively abolishing the distinction between the public and the private. All “faith” does this, in my opinion, just as all “faiths” do it, but one cannot fail to be struck by the confidence with which Islamism legislates for absolutism in every department of existence.

This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison: one that is in some ways encouraging. Both of these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death-wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well. Meanwhile, however our critics may wail about the way in which we generalize or deal in “stereotypes”, there is hardly one of them who has protested when the American flag is paraded bedecked with a swastika (a swastika!) or a cartoon of the President is carried across campus wearing a Hitler moustache. Who exactly is it who is looking for fascism in all the wrong places?

Gartenstein-Ross: Hitchens draws an excellent analogy between Fascist and jihadist ideology, and offers a competent rebuttal to various pundits’ objections to comparing the two. However, the question Jamie posed is not whether “Islamofascism” is an appropriate polemical term, or whether it is fair to compare militant Islam to Fascism. Rather, he queried whether the term is “legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war”; indeed, some commentators now use the term this way. My contention is that as a definitional term applied to the enemy, “Islamofascism” is too imprecise and in some ways counterproductive.

The first problem is that the term is overly broad. Hitchens actually does a good job of illustrating this problem in his opening remarks. In discussing the term’s history, Hitchens writes that Malise Ruthven first used it when “writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Arab countries are, for the most part, no less fascistic today than they were in 1990, yet they are not “the enemy” in this war. Much of their heavy-handed police state tactics-for example, in Algeria and Egypt-are in fact aimed at the stateless Islamic militants against whom the present war is directed. (This statement is, of course, not meant as an endorsement of these states’ tactics.)

Taking a closer look at the Muslim world, the state of emergency that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf declared in early November has much in common with Fascist governance-but it did not transform him from a bumbling and self-destructive ally into an enemy in the present global war. No Middle Eastern government had more in common with Fascist rule than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: as former CIA director James Woolsey has said, the Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” But regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq war (and I have made my views on the matter clear), we did not go to war-nor would we have-because of the similarities between Saddam’s rule and Fascism. Rather, the justification was rooted in U.S. national interests, such as intelligence estimates of Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction and concerns about possible cooperation with al-Qaeda.

Other groups and countries that possess critical differences may be too quickly lumped together under the “Islamofascist” umbrella. There is currently a lively debate among policymakers and analysts about how the U.S. should deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. While I do not endorse the argument advanced by Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke about “the moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” I think the debate is a legitimate one-and that treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are “Islamofascist” would run contrary to our strategic interests. In President Bush’s September 20, 2001 address to the joint session of Congress, he said that the U.S. would “starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another.” I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.

Aside from this definitional problem, there are also tactical problems with using “Islamofascism.” The term is polemical in nature, as Hitchens readily admits when he says that he first used the phrase “fascism with an Islamic face” to “ridicule those who presented [9/11] as some kind of liberation theology in action.” His initial use of the phrase was both clever and effective. But clever polemical turns of phrase are best used sparingly. I would wager that even Hitchens cringes at how some lesser writers have used “Islamofascism.”

The use of a polemical turn of phrase to “defin[e] the enemy we face” can also limit the audience that one reaches. If I’m reading a work that employs the phraseology “Bushitler” or “Zionazi,” that’s usually a strong sign that reading further could only possibly lower my IQ. While “Islamofascism” is not as false as either of those polemical terms, people associate it with a certain political viewpoint about the war against radical Islam. If they do not agree with the viewpoint, the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments.

Finally, use of the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase. It is true that a number of Muslim moderates have a wide variety of objections to terms analysts use to describe the enemy, and many of their terminological objections are in my view illegitimate. But they have some legitimate objections to the term “Islamofascism.” One legitimate objection, as detailed above, is the term’s overbreadth. Another legitimate objection is that the term will almost undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. This can be seen in some of the similarities Hitchens fingers between radical Islam and Fascism, including “exclusive stress on the power of one great book,” “strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual `deviance,'” and “subordination of the female.” These descriptions can apply not just to militant practice of the faith, but also conservative manifestations.

Secularists tend to view all religious practice with suspicion, and overgeneralize on that basis. Note that Hitchens argues that there is a totalitarian tendency not just within extremist Islam, but rather that “all `faiths’ do it.” Or note Christiane Amanpour’s clumsy attempt to liken American evangelicals to the Taliban on CNN’s God’s Warriors. Moderate Muslims are rightly concerned that the “Islamofascist” label will be applied to legitimate theological practices.

In short, I have no problem with Hitchens’s initial description of bin Laden’s agenda as “fascism with an Islamic face,” and I think he proffers a strong defense of the analogy. But the term’s overbreadth obscures real distinctions that analysts need to make, and I believe there are also solid tactical reasons that those of us who care about defeating Islamic extremism should select a different label.

FP: So what is that different label going to be? We can’t just reject a term without offering a term that we think is better to describe our enemy.

Surely “Islamo-fascism” is a legitimate term. We can’t take the Islam out of the fascistic Muslims who are waging war on us, and we would be fooling ourselves if we try to sweep the word “Islam” under the rug. Moreover, it is a given that many Muslims are not fascistic — just as many Italians weren’t fascistic all because Italian fascists existed. And we can’t take the fascist out of the Muslim fascists either.

Khalim Massoud, as a reform-minded Muslim, what do you think of this term? Do you “bristle” at the term in the way that Gartenstein-Ross says that moderate Muslims “almost uniformly” do?

Massoud: I define fascism as a totalitarian political ideology with an element of superiority. German fascism’s criterion of superiority was race. Islamic fascism’s criterion of superiority is religion. Otherwise both ideologies are practically identical.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says “use of the term ‘Islamofascism’ makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase.” I couldn’t disagree more. As long as the user of the term makes a clear distinction between Islam and Islamofascism, moderate Muslims will not be offended by the term. And the ones who are offended are not moderate. In fact, moderate Muslims were the first to widely use this term to describe radicals in Algeria who murdered more than 100,000 of moderate Muslims.

I also disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’s contention that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are ‘Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests.” The strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate. They may employ different tactics, but their objective is the same. And they both are Islamofascist organizations. Tactically, they need to be treated differently, but strategically they must be treated the same; these groups must be eliminated.

Starving terrorists of funding and turning them against one another hasn’t really worked so far. How can we possibly starve terrorists of funding when we are pumping billions of Petro-Dollars into Persian Gulf regimes? As for turning terrorists against each other, it might be working to some degree in Israel (Fatah vs. Hamas). However, in Iraq, Sunni terrorists are murdering Shia civilians and vice versa, but they don’t seem to be going after each other.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, “I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.” I don’t think we can rely on these schisms, especially when history shows that supporting the lesser evil, i.e., Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets or Iraq against Iran, may backfire. I think the correct approach is not to focus on making different terrorist groups fight each other, but to empower moderate Muslims and have them fight the radicals.

Tefft: My view is a bit more simplistic, and at the same time an amalgam of the rest of the panel. Islam is indeed fascistic in that it is (like National Socialism, Communism and Fascism) both totalitarian and posits an absolute superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. This is demonstrated in the Islamic system of dhimmitude and the second class citizenship of kuffars who, if not killed or converted, are forced to pay the ‘jizya’ – the infidel poll tax.

The problem with using the term Islamofascist though is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims — and this is misleading and therefore a disservice to our war effort. As the later Suras of the Koran indicate, Islam is to dominate the world, jihad is an obligation if not a duty of all Muslims, and all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.

As you know, the later Suras abrogate any contradictory earlier ones of “peace, love, and tolerance”. Given that the first duty of every Muslim, as an article of faith, is to accept the Koran as the literal word of Allah, is it possible for so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ to pick and choose which part of the Koran they will adhere to? To reject parts of the Koran? My understanding is that if a Muslim rejects the Koran he is rejecting Islam and Allah and is an apostate.

I think the evidence is clear that, as the Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan said about “moderate” Islam, this past August, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

In further support of Erdogan, it is interesting that no Islamic religious authority has pronounced takfir on bin Laden or al-Qaeda declaring them apostates for their terrorism in the name of Islam. This is not from fear of retaliation by the terrorists, but recognition of the fact that bin Laden is not violating Islamic principles. He is practicing Islam as the Koran and the Hadiths dictate.

Insofar as Muslims murdering Muslims, this is human nature and fascist or not, Muslims are humans. They are divided into tribes, and groups, with leaders who have ego problems. Bin Laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to an alliance in 1995 that the Shia-Sunni conflict was inevitable and would continue but that both sides, as Muslims, must devote their efforts against the main enemy, the Great Satan. After the defeat of the United States and the West, then the Shia and Sunnis would sort out their differences. This agreement has largely held, in spite of the word not getting through to some of the lower level elements who insist on blowing up each other’s mosques in Iraq and Pakistan.

FP: With all due respect, Bruce Tefft, to suggest that there is no difference between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims is completely erroneous. I don’t know if I am missing something, but I think there is indeed a difference between someone who is fascist and someone who isn’t fascist.

It is a given that Islam has an intrinsic problem and that it does serve as a foundation to terror. And it is crucial that people such as yourself have the courage to raise this and to drive the point home. But to suggest that all Muslims are the same, indistinguishable from one another, and all our enemies is absurd. There are organizations such as Muslims Against Sharia and the Muslim Canadian Congress that reject Sharia and reject jihad. There are Muslims, such as the two on our panel, Khalim Massoud and Thomas Haidon, who oppose extremism and are trying to bring Islam into the democratic and modern world. They are not replicas of Osama bin Laden, they do not share his agenda, and they are his enemy and our allies.

Does this mean that there is no problem in Islamic theology? No. Does it mean that Islamic moderates and reformers don’t face a huge challenge in their effort to change Islam, especially when it is true, as you point out Mr. Tefft, that Islam itself disallows any change to its own teachings (i.e. the Qur’an)? No. But this does not mean that there are not many Muslims who want to try to create their own new Islam and who want a relaxation of Islamic principles? Whether they can do this, and whether it is possible, is another matter, but to suggest that all Muslims are the same because there are huge obstacles to an Islamic reformation is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

And these kinds of arguments do deadly damage to our own cause since the Muslims who embrace Western civilization and seek to change Islam, whether this is possible or not, are our inspirational hope against radical Islam. They have weapons against the enemy that we do not have and we would be foolish to push them away and consider them our enemy, when they are not.

Thomas Haidon, go ahead.

Haidon: Accurate problem definition is a crucial component to addressing any policy question. The failure to accurately frame issues and problems almost ensures a misguided policy response to any issue. Ensuring that the terminology we use to describe a problem is accurate is crucial. There are real risks if we get it wrong or articulate the problem in a manner that is “under inclusive,” inclusive or “over inclusive” (as Mr Garenstein-Ross has observed). We have seen what happens, at a policy level, when an “under-inclusive” approach has been taken to addressing the Islamist problem. The US “war on terror” has consistently failed (other than in soundbites) to identify Islam’s role. This has lead to flawed policies which have forced “democracy” in the Arab world, which has led to the consequences in Egypt and the Occupied Territories and the resurgence of Ikwan and Hamas.

An over-inclusive approach to problem identification has just been demonstrated to us by Mr. Tefft. This approach not only marginalises the Islamists, but also moderate Muslims who are in a bitter fight for survival in the battle of ideas. Mr. Tefft’s approach is not one rooted in strategy. Moderate Muslims should be viewed by non-Muslims as partners in fighting Islamists. That being said, I can understand and sympathise with Mr. Tefft’s frustration. Moderate Muslims are not always easy to identify.

Overall, while I think there is some incongruence between fascism and the nature of the Islamist threat, at a high-level I think that Islamo-fascism is an appropriate descriptor of the problem. It is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive. The challenge we are confronted with is a political, confrontational and authoritarian interpretation of Islam. The writings of the 20th century Islamist revivalists (Hasan Al’Banna, Sayid Qut’b, Abi Al’a Al Mawdoudi, Sheikh Haj Amin Al Husseini) demonstrate approaches in common with fascism. When one reads the writings and teachings of these individuals, which are celebrated in the Muslim world, and which form the ideological basis of the full range of Islamist organisations and movements (from Ikwan to Hamas to Al’Qaeda), there is no mistake about the commonalities and shared characteristics with fascism of Giovanni Gentile or Carl Schmitt, particularly a disdain for democracy and fundamental human rights, in favour of the rights of the collective.

Islamo-fascism, as a term, is neither “under-inclusive” nor “over-inclusive”. It defines the enemy narrowly. It has the potential to isolate some moderate and traditional Muslims, not because of the accuracy of the term, but in its delivery. The methods and ways in which the term is delivered will have a bearing on how moderate and traditional Muslims will react. The term “Islamo-fascism” is now inextricably linked to the so called “right-wing” and those who have traditionally been critical and skeptical of Islam. This perception will continue to contribute to the lack of moderate Muslim “buy in”. In my view, the “right”, which is on the forefront of this fight, needs to develop a more strategic approach in engaging moderate and traditional Muslims. How to achieve this is another question, but one that is closely linked and requires examination. It should be a core assumption (not shared by Mr. Tefft), that moderate Muslims and peaceful traditional Muslims are partners in this process. As Mr. Massoud has indicated, they need to be empowered. The term “Islamo-fascism” has the capacity to be an empowering mechanism, if delivered effectively.

Spencer: Perhaps it would be helpful to step back for a moment and recall some of the features of the phenomenon we are trying to capture in a phrase. The 20th century Islamic revivalists to which Mr. Haidon refers wrote of the need for Muslims to make war against and ultimately replace any government not based on Islamic law with a Sharia regime. This is an explicitly and inherently religious imperative, as Maududi articulated when he said that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” The Islamic way of life – Sharia in its classic formulations by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence — is a total concept, encompassing every aspect of life, and subordinating every human endeavor to the Islamic cause.

Is this an Islamic imperative? Undeniably, to any rational observer — although this half of the “Islamo-Fascism” term is controverted even more heatedly than the other half. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has even forbidden his cabinet to use another compound, “Islamic terrorism,” or to suggest in any way that Islam has anything to do with the.the.the large thing that the world faces today. Yet proponents of this view are indeed, as Mr. Haidon said, revivalists: they are attempting to restore what they argue is the purity and fullness of Islam, and appeal to peaceful Muslims on that basis. Part of that fullness and purity is the proposition that there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular, and that Islamic law must be the law of the land.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, is quite right when he points out that the term “Islamo-Fascism” has been applied to governments that are not strict Sharia or Islamic revivalist regimes, but are rather dictatorships that – as Hitchens notes regarding Malise Ruthven’s original use of the word “Islamo-Fascism” – “used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Gartenstein-Ross correctly notes that sometimes these regimes, such as in Algeria, Egypt, and now Musharraf’s Pakistan, cracked down violently on “stateless Islamic militants” who hold an ideology identical to that held by those who attacked us on 9/11. This does complicate somewhat the usefulness of the term. If the enemy is Islamo-Fascism, can the U.S. have Islamo-Fascist allies such as General Musharraf?

Ruthven’s usage is perfectly legitimate: after all, Saddam Hussein, to take the most notorious example, headed an Arab nationalist secular regime, but he never hesitated to use religious language – specifically, the language of jihad warfare – to shore up his base and try to compel Islamic hardliners in Iraq to fight to defend his regime. Nevertheless, Saddam did not institute Sharia and had no desire to do so; Musharraf, despite his own occasional use of Islamic rhetoric, is now actively engaged in combating those who want to make over Pakistan into a strict Sharia state.

The term “Islamo-Fascist” may not, therefore, apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them: Saddam, Musharraf, Mubarak and the secular rulers of Algeria may indeed be authoritarians – fascists – but there is nothing specifically Islamic about their fascism other than the fact that they themselves are Muslim rulers of majority-Muslim states. The state envisioned by Osama and his ilk, in contrast, is just as authoritarian, but it is so in a strictly Islamic context – which is why those in favor of such a state – authoritarian and Sharia-based — merit the “Islamo-Fascist” label.

I disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, and agree with Mr. Massoud, about the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross contends that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are `Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests,” but Mr. Massoud points out correctly that “the strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate.” As the Muslim Brotherhood’s website itself says:

“We want a Muslim individual, a Muslim home, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and state that will lead the Islamic countries and bring into the fold the Muslim Diaspora and the lands robbed from Islam and will then bear the standard of jihad and the call [da’wah] to Allah. [Then the] world will happily accept the precepts of Islam….The problems of conquering the world will only end when the flag of Islam waves and jihad has been proclaimed..The goal is to establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah…and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena….The goal…is the establishment of a world Islamic state.”

That statement is quintessentially both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.

As for Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’ contention that “the use of a polemical turn of phrase to `defin[e] the enemy we face’ can also limit the audience that one reaches,” and that “the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments,” I’m afraid that is inevitable no matter what term one uses. People make decisions about the veracity of an argument based on who is making it, or where it is published, or what set of catch phrases are being used. That is true across the political spectrum. Dispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day, and we should not let that fact deter us from using a term that may be accurate, useful and in many ways illuminating.

And in light of the fact that the term is in both of its component parts accurate, I do wonder why, as Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, moderate Muslims “almost uniformly bristle” at the phrase “Islamo-Fascism.” As I found myself saying many times during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, “Islamo-Fascism” doesn’t imply that all Muslims are fascists any more than “white racism” implies that all whites are racist, or “Italian fascism” that all Italians are fascist. So much for the term’s “overbreadth.” And will it “undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent”? A further distinction needs to be made here: are those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative? In that case, ultimately it matters little that they are “not violent,” for they are pursuing through non-violent means the same goal that Osama and others are pursuing through violence. There are many non-violent Islamic supremacists even in America today, and we need to be aware of the congruence of their agenda with that of the violent jihadists.

When Mr. Tefft says that “the problem with using the term Islamofascist is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims,” I think he is failing to draw the necessary distinction between Islam and Muslims. Religious traditions are large things, and while it is certainly true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims under Sharia rule, it does not follow from that that all Muslims, or any given Muslim, knows of such teachings, takes them to heart, or acts upon them — or ever will.

In Islam as in all religious traditions there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, fervor and emphasis. Islamic supremacism has not, unfortunately, been disavowed by any orthodox sect or school of Islam, but for a variety of historical and cultural reasons these teachings have not been emphasized for a considerable period in some areas of the Islamic world. Because of the deep traditional roots of these teachings, jihadist recruiters in person and via cassette tapes, DVD’s and the Internet are making inroads in these peaceful Muslim communities, and have seized the intellectual initiative in the Islamic world. Nonetheless, there is a large difference between fascist and non-fascist Muslims.

Unlike many analysts, I do not believe we can encourage those non-fascist Muslims by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say, or that the jihadists have no case to make on Islamic grounds; rather, I believe that their case can only be combated by being confronted for what it is. There may be considerable numbers of Muslims who would sincerely renounce Islamic supremacism if given a chance to do so. But since the problem is not even being presented in those terms, non-Muslims are too often fooled by false moderates and pseudo-reformers.

And one quibble: Mr. Tefft says that “the later Suras of the Koran indicate” that “all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.” Actually, the choices for non-Muslims delineated by Muhammad and Islamic law are not conversion, slavery, or death, but conversion, subjugation, or death (cf. Qur’an 9:29, as well as the hadith recorded at Sahih Muslim 4294). Subjugation is not, strictly speaking, slavery, although the distinction between the two at various points in Islamic history was exceedingly fine. Non-Muslims had to accept a humiliating second-class status and held their lives and property always at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords, but they were not slaves outright.

Hughes: The comments and responses in this symposium are useful and enlightening. I think this is just what is needed to characterize and define what our moderator (Mr. Glazov) refers to as “our enemy.” Some may think that referring to Islamic militants as the enemy is too polarizing, but from my view, as a feminist concerned about the well being and rights of women and girls, they are indeed one of the most serious, global threats to women and girls.

As for the term “Islamo-Fascism,” it is a compound term comprised of two essential elements. First of all, it connects the growing threat to the religion that the militants choose to explain and justify their beliefs and actions. They have chosen this base for their ideology. They proclaim themselves to be God’s warriors and call their actions jihad. Their opponents did not project it on to them. It may challenge us to precisely name and identify who they are, but the Islamic radicals are not confused. I know liberal, moderate, and progressive Muslims who also are not confused, they have no trouble distinguishing between the Islamic fundamentalists and Muslims who have different interpretations of the religious texts, especially as they translate the texts into how they live their lives and define their politics.

The second part of the term “Islamo-Fascism” is also important. “Fascism” clearly indicates that this is a political movement. We can debate whether “fascism” is the correct name or not. Some say it isn’t because it differs in some ways from previous fascist movements and regimes. Well, nothing is ever exactly like anything else. I’ll let the historians and political scientists debate this one. If they come up with a better term, they can let us know. The point is we need a term that names this phenomenon as a political movement with common ideology, tactics, and way of ruling once control of territory is established.

A political label also helps us distinguish the political movement from conservative, traditional practices. This distinction is most apparent when we look at the lives of women. There are many families, communities and entire nations that are conservative and traditional, which often translates into suppression and strict control of women and girls. Females are oppressed by discriminatory attitudes and practices, often reinforced by violence (i.e. honor killings). Feminists say that sexism is political. A rallying cry of the second wave of the women’s movement (1960s) was “the personal is political.” While I agree that the status of women and girls is always political, influenced by culture, religion, and traditional practices, I want to distinguish between the small “p” politics of traditional practices, and the capital “P” politics of Islamo-Fascism.

The small “p” politics of sexism is systemic discrimination that exists all over the world; sometimes it is so severe that it reaches the level of oppression. Women’s liberation movements have addressed sexism throughout the world, some more successfully than others. In the ideology and practices of Islamo-Fascism, sexism is politicized. The suppression of women is incorporated in the capital “P” political movement.

As the influence of Islamo-Fascism grows and as Islamo-Fascists gain control of territory, women and girls and their rights become political targets. As I like to say “Terrorism begins at home.” The most severe oppression of women and girls we have ever seen took place under the Taliban in Afghanistan, where girls were banned from education and women were banned from working and consigned to house arrest. They could only emerge from their houses if they covered their bodies and identities with a burqa and were accompanied by a male member of their family.

Islamo-Fascism politicizes sexism, making the oppression of women and girls a political goal. Their success in controlling a population can be measured by the extent to which they have suppressed women and girls. It is their visible sign-to the communities they control and to the outside world-that they are in control. Just as anti-Semitism is a global prejudice, with consequences–sometimes severe consequences-to individuals, it is when anti-Semitism is incorporated into a political movement, as it was with Nazism, that it becomes more virulent and deadly. That is what Islamo-Fascism is doing with sexism. Because even the most misogynous Islamo-Fascist recognizes the biological indispensability of women, they don’t advocate genocide. Instead they practice slavery. Women and girls who violate their rules are viciously punished with whippings. In order to terrorize the rest of the population, a few women and girls are killed, often in brutal public executions, such as stoning to death.

To conclude, it is important to have accurate term or terms to describe the global threat we are facing. The “war on terror” as a label has failed us. My students have no idea what it means. It carries no information. It doesn’t identify the enemies the war is against or their ideas and goals. In fact, it’s a rather sad state of affairs that six years after 9-11 and nine years after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania we are still trying to decide what to call the people and movement that have targeted us.

In the end, we may decide there are better terms to refer to this militant, deadly political movement, but Islamo-Fascism moves us in the right direction of identifying and characterizing it.

Hitchens: I feel very much vindicated by the comments of the learned members of this panel: whether our disagreements are concerned with principle or with emphasis they are nonetheless of the sort that enable one to learn. I think that the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms “Islamic” and “fascist” would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.

I myself am of the opinion that monotheistic religious belief, with its celebration of an absolutist and unchangeable deity, is in any case implicitly and explicitly totalitarian. But this does not mean that every Baptist in every epoch is always and everywhere the equivalent of today’s members of the deluded “Mahdi Army”, say.

Fascism is not something that can be a permanent part of the landscape. It is hysterical and spasmodic and relies on very strenuous forms of mobilisation. Even when victorious it probably cannot constitute, for very long, a regime. Its tendency to self-destruction is very marked, as I tried to point out. However, it is in some ways precisely this futility and degraded romanticism that make it so dangerous.

I tried to introduce a version of the term because, as Marx says at the opening of the Eighteenth Brumaire, a person trying to learn a new language will always have a tendency to translate it back into the tongue that he already knows. I knew that there would be those who compared the struggle against jihadism to the Cold War (and I argued with Jim Woolsey and others that this was no time to resurrect The Committee for the Free World: an opinion of mine that events have not forced me to reconsider.) The battle, it seemed and seems to me, was very much more like the earlier struggle against an essentially irrational movement. Stalin and Mao may have been deeply unstable people but they were somehow constrained by a wooden materialism: religious intoxication can have the effect of making half-way sane people act with wild disregard for their own self-interest, let alone the interests of others. Khalim Massoud has noticed this demented tendency in the case of the Algerian jihadists, who ended up excommunicating an entire North African population as infidel. Similar pathologies are observable among the sadistic maniacs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotomia.

Let us not forget that ultimate victory over fascism was made possible in large part because of that movement’s own tendency to act in mad ways. (Declaring war on three fronts at once, expelling all those who knew anything about nuclear physics, diverting rail-cars and troops and materiel for the purpose of eliminating civilians.) Thus, in pointing out the kinship between one kind of irrational fanaticism and another, I was also hoping to put a bit of heart and stomach into the argument, and suggest a thoughtful confidence in ultimate victory. This confidence is given a slight surge, in my own case at least, by observation of the criminally insane and self-defeating tactics that the fascists of Islam have been pursuing since the fall of 2001.

I should add the anti-fascists of Islam, who have born much of the heat and burden of the day, deserve a much more honorable title that that of “moderate”. Perhaps this condescending terminology could furnish the material for a subsequent FP round-table.

FP: And the round-table on this subject will begin immediately. Thank you for the excellent idea Mr. Hitchens.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, your turn my friend.

Gartenstein-Ross: At the outset, I’d like to agree with Hitchens’s remark that even “the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms `Islamic’ and `fascist’ would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.” In fact, I recently spoke with a “moderate” Muslim colleague (I put the term “moderate” in quotations not to suggest that my colleague is a closet extremist, but to signal my agreement with Hitchens’s statement of the term’s inadequacy) about Hitchens’s initial contribution to this symposium. On hearing that past usage of the terms “Catholic fascist,” “clerical fascist,” and “Judaeo-Nazi” mean that Islam is not being uniquely singled out, he commented, “As a Muslim, that makes me feel somewhat better about the term.”

That being said, I do not waver from my initial position in this debate: while the analogies between Islamic extremism and fascism are clear, and while Hitchens (and, perhaps, others?) has competently employed the polemical term to rebut those who would like to paint al-Qaeda as a kind of turbaned liberation theology, “Islamofascism” is not the term we should use to define the enemy. It seems that I am alone on the panel in taking that position: the only other contributor who opposes the use of this term is Tefft, who argues that it falsely “implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims.” That is, obviously, not my argument. Now, it’s always pleasant to be the lone dissenter in a debate-particularly in a debate like this, where I’m not forced to distance myself from the kind of hypersensitive “how could you even think of using that term?” arguments to which the other panelists alluded. But because I am a lone voice, you’ll have to indulge the length of this summary of the reasons that I encourage others to avoid “Islamofascism” as a definitional term.

The first argument I advanced against the term is its overbreadth. Arab countries, for example, are generally no less fascistic than they were in 1990 when Malise Ruthven applied the term to Arab dictatorships-yet they are not the enemy that we’re fighting. My argument on this point has not been refuted. Haidon argues that the term is “an appropriate descriptor of the problem” because such twentieth century revivalists as Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and A.A. Maududi have approaches in common with fascism. (He also mentions Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, who had more in common with fascism than just an approach.) I don’t disagree with the parallels that Haidon draws, but they are not responsive to my argument: while “Islamofascism” is a fair description of the jihadist ideologues whose views drive al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic movements, it also describes many other actors in the Middle East. The term has been applied to groups ranging from al-Qaeda and Hizballah to the PFLP, Iraqi Ba’ath party, and Syrian Alawite elite. “Islamofascism” largely appears to have become a stand-in for “Middle Eastern bad guys.”

Spencer agrees that there is a problem with overbreadth, but attempts to mitigate it by pointing out that although Pervez Musharraf, Saddam Hussein, and other leaders in the Muslim world to whom the term “Islamofascist” might apply employ religious rhetoric, they have not implemented sharia law. Therefore, Spencer states, the term might not “apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them.” His argument is true enough if one emphasizes the “Islamo” half of “Islamofascism.” But if one emphasizes the “fascism” half of the term, it fits Middle Eastern regimes better than it does al-Qaeda. I do not deny the authoritarian nature of today’s militant Islamic movement, nor its conception of religious supremacy-but some Middle Eastern regimes explicitly drew their organizing principles from twentieth century fascist movements. George Michael (no, not the Wham! singer) writes in his book The Enemy of My Enemy:

The German model of centralized government and corporatist nationalism remained attractive to many of the early pan-Arab nationalists in Egypt, some of whom sought the creation of an “Arab Reich” that would unite all Arabs into one nation. The early pan-Arab leaders searched for methods to mobilize their populations and build independent nations. They were influenced in large part by European fascists who viewed the state as an organic outgrowth of the nation. As they saw it, only a strong, authoritarian state could protect the nation. Hence, the German model of bureaucratic centralization and authoritarianism looked attractive to many Arabs who sought an alternative way to modernize their countries.

This approach was most influential in Egypt, where such former Nazis as Otto Skorzeny, Johann von Leers, Wilhelm Farmbacher, Oskar Munzel, and Wilhelm Voss were given positions in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government. But former Nazi officials were granted sanctuary in other Middle Eastern states as well (notably Syria), and the fascist model was adopted elsewhere: recall that in my first contribution to this symposium, I quoted former CIA director James Woolsey’s statement that Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” In contrast, if you look at the kind of rule that was set up under the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, under al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in those parts of Iraq that came under its control, and more contemporaneously in northern Pakistan, these are not typical fascist states. Rather, their murderous political apparatus is somewhat unique. The same can be said of the long-term end-states laid out by both Indonesia’s Jemaah Islamiyah and also the international Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement. So if you give equal weight to both “Islamo” and also “fascist” in the term we are debating, overbreadth remains a problem.

My remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood have been somewhat misapprehended. Massoud decries the tactic of “supporting the lesser evil,” while Spencer quotes from the Brotherhood’s web site to show that the organization is “both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.” I did not claim otherwise: in my first contribution, I said that both al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood should be considered “Islamofascist” if one employs that term. Massoud in fact makes my point for me by stating that, tactically, al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood “need to be treated differently.” One reason a definitional term like “Islamofascism” is not useful is that it may obscure the tactical need to deal differently with such groups. (Incidentally, I’m currently participating in a separate FPM symposium on the Brotherhood that further elucidates my views on the group.)

Massoud claims that turning terrorists against one another “hasn’t really worked so far.” Nothing could be further from the truth. A critical reason that the U.S. has made such gains in Iraq over the past year is our ability to engage locals through the Awakening movement, along with other institutions such as the Concerned Local Citizens. Our ability to “turn” former insurgents has been an important part of this. Turning former insurgents has reduced the pool of potential recruits for AQI, created a mechanism for allowing experienced Sunni fighters to provide security in their areas, established a security force with local knowledge of AQI (since many of these men were formerly aligned with or subordinate to AQI), and provided a reconciliation mechanism for incorporating large numbers of armed Sunnis into the security forces in their areas. It has also been an important part of convincing people to stop participating in the insurgency. I don’t think the U.S. has done a fantastic job of this beyond Iraq, but Iraq clearly shows that turning terrorists against one another can work.

My next argument was that, tactically, using a polemical term to define the enemy can limit the audience that one reaches. Spencer replies that “[d]ispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day”-and thus we shouldn’t worry about employing potentially alienating terminology. It is true that we live in an age where public commentary can be characterized by its cheapness, demagoguery, and overall cowardice. Yet I don’t think the situation is as bleak as portrayed by Spencer. If it were, why are any of us wasting our time engaging in public commentary about terrorism and religious extremism? None of the panelists has seriously disputed the fact that the term “Islamofascism” causes a portion of the one’s potential audience to simply tune out. Why use such a term when there are other options?

Finally, I argued that the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work with moderate Muslims. Certainly Massoud and Haidon provide examples of Islamic moderates who aren’t upset by usage of the term, but Massoud’s statement that “the ones who are offended are not moderate” is simply untrue. I personally know a number of moderate Muslims who take exception to that phraseology. It is true that some Muslim extremists masquerading as moderates have objected to the term, but it’s a category error to say that therefore any Muslim who objects to the term “Islamofascism” is not moderate.

I stated in my first contribution that some moderate Muslim objections to the term “Islamofascism”-and to other terminology used to describe militant Islam-are illegitimate. But are there legitimate objections? I think so. One legitimate objection is the term’s overbreadth, which I have already discussed at length. A second legitimate objection that I outlined in my initial response is the concern that the term will be employed against religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. In response, Spencer asks whether “those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice” are “believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative.” If they are, he argues that “it matters little that they are `not violent.'” While I do not want to excuse those who seek to impose brutal forms of sharia through non-violent means, I note that within virtually all religions there is a constant struggle to determine what the faith means, and how it intersects with society. Some Muslims, for example, define themselves as pro-sharia, but in fact mean that they incorporate sharia into their personal lives while favoring secularism in society. This approach appears contradictory at first, and only time will tell if it can gain traction. There are also some Muslims who define themselves as pro-sharia but interpret the sharia in such a way that it has little in common with the religious laws adopted by the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union, or Saudi Arabia. I agree with Spencer that we do Muslim moderates no favors “by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say,” but a distinction (albeit one that is not always crystal clear) exists between conservative and militant practices of Islam.

How do I define the enemy? Sadly, my own terminology isn’t all that exciting. I agree with Glazov that one cannot remove the word “Islam” from the equation because that is how bin Laden and others expressly frame their motivations. I tend to use the phrase “militant Islam” because we are contending with Islamic movements defined by their willingness to take up arms for their cause. I use the terms “radical Islam” and “extremist Islam” because Islamic terrorist movements are radical or extreme by any sane definition-and both terms signal that this is not.

http://www.aina.org/news/20080208141046.htm

‘RAMZI YOUSEF’ – THE EPITOME OF ‘ISLAMOFASCISM’

February 6, 2008
‘RAMZI YOUSEF’ – THE EPITOME OF ‘ISLAMOFASCISM’
Q. – WHAT DOES ATTACKING WESTERN TARGETS, PLOTTING TO KILL THE POPE, ASSASSINATING A MUSLIM WOMAN IN A HIGH POSITION BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, BOMBING WTC – 911, AL QAEDA, LONDON BOMBING, PLAYING “PALESTINIAN VICTIM”, ALL HAVE IN COMMON?
A. – ‘RAMZI YOUSEF’ – AKA THE EPITOME OF ‘ISLAMOFASCISM’.
What ‘Iraq war’ excuse?
we are talking 1993-1995!
————————————-
CNN – ‘Proud terrorist’ gets life for Trade Center bombing – Jan
…Ramzi Yousef’s full sentence — life in prison plus 240 years — follows two
… Six people were killed in the February 26, 1993, bombing of the twin towers

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/
terrorismfiles.org : Ramzi YousefRamzi Yousef is the convicted
mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He also plotted to bomb U.S.
airliners in January 1995. …
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/ramzi_yousef.html
Ramzi Yousef :: Individual Terrorists :: The Investigative Project
…Ramzi Yousef was captured in Pakistan. Yousef received a life sentence for
the Bojinka plot and 240 years for the 1993 WTC bombing. …
http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/105
MIPT Terrorism Knowledge BaseWithin months of the World Trade Center
bombing, Yousef began plotting the assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto, a
plan that fell apart in July 1993, …
http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=5632
Benazir planning to return to Pak despite threat, Exiled former prime
minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto has said that she … According to Bhutto,
when Ramzi Yusef was captured by her government in 1995 …
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/10bhutto.htm
Ramzi Yusuf tried to assassinate me,” Bhutto said. … “I offered to US
authorities to set up the FBI office in Pakistan in 1993 so that effective
action …
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=67510
Complete 911 Timeline: Ramzi YousefRamzi Yousef, the future bomber of
the WTC in 1993, stays in the Philippines and trains militants there in
bomb-making. According to Philippine intelligence …
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?other_al-qaeda_operatives=complete_911_timeline_ramzi_yousef
Bojinka Plot — A Test Run. Ramzi Yousef plants a small bomb on a
Philippine Airlines plane. The bomb explodes during the second leg of the trip
and kills a …
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron.html 
CBC: The Secret History of 9/11 : Ramzi Yousef, Terrorist, At 11:43 am,
just off the coast of Okinawa, the bomb exploded. … In 1995, Ramzi Yousef’s
plot to attack US landmarks with aircraft was taken seriously. …
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline.html

 
London Air Bomb Design May Also Trace To Ramzi Yousef | Bush Ups
…As many have noted today, the thwarted plot to bomb U.S.-bound airliners
appears to date back to Ramzi Yousef’s Bojinka 1995 plot. …
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2006_08_10_exclusives.html

Bin Laden Connections To Philippine Terror Explored, Ramzi Yousef
Trained Bomb-makers in the Philippines … Plans for the raid were found along
with evidence of a plot by two bin Laden assassins to kill the …
http://www.int-review.org/terr28a.html
Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S.
airplanes
http://www.opinionjournal.com/search/exec/htsearch.cgi?words=ramzi;page=4
Liquid bomb plot: not the first time | Features | The First Post, There
is something both familiar and novel about the terrorist plot outlined …
worked with Ramzi Yousef, also on bin Laden’s payroll, on the 1993 car bomb

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?menuID=2&subID=818
All about The Killing of Rabbi Kahane: Jihad in America, El-Sayid
Nosair’s assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense
… For example, when Ramzi Yusef was arrested in Pakistan in 1995,

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/elsayid_nosair/7.html 
Ramzi Yousef, the British-educated extremist who planned the 1993
bombing of the World Trade … and plotted to kill the Pope…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,550411,00.html
Al-Qaeda planned to assassinate Pope: report – smh.com.auAlthough the
1995 plot had been publicised and attributed to local terrorists … The bomb
was reportedly constructed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a life …
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308581808.html 

Arab Racism

February 1, 2008

Arab Racism

One of the accusations which the various Arab countries (including Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel) often make against Israel is that “Zionism is racism”. Defining Zionism, the national liberation movement of jews, the victims of racism, as racism is particularly cynical, yet it seems that the Arabs have succeeded to convince the leaders of some nations, themselves victims of racism, to support this vicious accusation.
The latest attempt to define Zionism as racism was at the 2001 UNESCO conference which was held in Durban, South Africa. The resolution which was initiated by Arab countries enjoyed the support of most participants. Especially painful was the support of such African leaders as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. Some Western countries, however, notably Australia and Canada, objected and accused the conference of hypocrisy. The Canadian delegation, for example, issued the following statement:
“Canada is still here today only because we wanted to have our voice decry the attempts at this Conference to de-legitimize the State of Israel and to dishonor the history and suffering of the Jewish people. We believe, and we have said in the clearest possible terms, that it was inappropriate – wrong – to address the Palestinian-Israel conflict in this forum. We have said, and will continue to say, that anything – any process, any declaration, any language – presented in any forum that does not serve to advance a negotiated peace that will bring security, dignity and respect to the people of the region is – and will be – unacceptable to Canada.”
It was for that reason that both Israel and the United States under the leadership of Secretary Colin Powell, himself no stranger to racism, pulled their delegations from the conference. The final text adopted by the conference drops all direct criticism of Israel, but does recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and expresses concern at their plight under foreigh occupation.
That was only the latest attempt to define Zionism as racism. In November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” In December 1991, the General Assembly rescinded this resolution through Resolution 4686.
All those years the Arab countries continued to promote this false notion. It is therefore of interest to check how different things are on the other side of the fence, namely in the Arab countries. Even though there are many blacks who live in those countries the question whether they are subject to racism was academic for a long time and one had to resort to circumstantial evidence in order to answer it. One well-known fact is that most Arabs refer to blacks as “Abed” which means “slave” in Arabic. This seems to say something about the situation of racism in the Arab world. Today, due to the recent events in Darfur and the active role that the Arab Janjaweed play in the slaughter of black Africans there, this question has become more urgent and relevant than ever before. It is time for the UN and the whole world to fight it NOW

http://www.democrasay.com/node/597